1

Research Theme : Institution for the management of natural disaster at national level, asharing between Nepal and Japan, in reference to south Asian countries

Research Report by VR Pradip Kumar Koirala
ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014A

Visiting Research Program from Aug 18 to Nov 27, 2014

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

2Research Theme : Institution for the management of natural disaster at national level, asharing between Nepal and Japan, in reference to south Asian countries

Research Report by VR Pradip Kumar Koirala1
ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014A
Submitted on Nov 25, 014

Disclaimer : This report was compiled by an ADRC visiting researcher from ADRC member
countries. The views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of neither the
ADRC nor the MOHA, focal disaster management agency at Nepal. The boundaries and names
shown and the designations used on the maps in the report also do not imply official endorsement or
acceptance by the ADRC. The view and conclusion expressed in the report solely from the prospective ofresearch from VR.

1

Mr. Koirala, Under-Secretary in Government of Nepal, working at the Disaster Management Division of
the Ministry of Home Affairs Nepal, has completed Master of Public Management (MPM) from the Universityof Potsdam, Berlin and has almost ten years of experience in national policy and disaster management at
national level
Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

3

Acknowledgement
The changing perspective, from response focus to preparedness focus of disaster management issignificantly important for Nepal along with the proper institutional setup and regulation backup.
Since I was working in Disaster Management Division at the Ministry of Home Affairs, the nodal
ministry for the disaster management in Nepal, it was imperative for me to have better understandingof the proper practices of disaster management of different countries with the exposure of Japanese
System. In the mean time, I have seen the ADRC Visiting Researcher program, which sufficiently
allows the member nations to their authority for proper research in any important disaster related topic,
as the member nations authority think as an important. I have determined myself to have acontribution from my side in the area of disaster management. With the endorsement from the
Ministry, I have prepared a research proposal and submitted to ADRC in the most relevant theme for
us with the captioned topic. Now, here it is the result, as the hard workings of three and half month at
Kobe.
In the trajectory process, first of all, I would like to thank the MOHA and its authorities especially Mr.
LP Dhakal, the then national disaster focal point, for continuously encouraging and supporting me in
my disaster field carrier. I am sure without him, it would not have initiated this research and the result,not only the acknowledgement from my side to him, I like to dedicate this research to him. Along withhim, I like to appreciate the support from Mr. YN Aryal, Mr. R Dangal (Ex-ADRC,VR), Mr. RK
Khadka, Mr. JN Dhakal, Ms. L Pandey, Mr. BK Acharya, Mr. S Paudel and Ms. P Jha for theircontinuous support even from Kathmandu. The consultation and support from DRR expert and actorsof Nepal including Mr. MB Thapa, Mr. AM Dixit, Mr. RP Luitel, Mr. P Aryal, Ms. R Dhakal, Mr. RC
Neupane, Mr. KB Dhungana, Mr. R Guragain, Mr. D Paudel, Mr. SP Basyal and Ms. M Riddik has
remained very important for me to shape this report, as I have got their feedback from various ways
including the social media as well.
I sincerely like to thank the ADRC for providing me the opportunity for the research, my special
thanks go to Ms. Yumi Shiomi for being continuously touched with me before arriving here and aftercoming here. She has provided the proper way of feedback not only my research proposal but also thewhole research, as she has helped me by assuming the role of mentor, proving bit of material to study
and providing various exposure visit to the different disaster management related places. My sincere
appreciation goes to Mr. M Hamada, Mr. K Natori, Mr. M Arakida, Ms. A Nakamura, Ms. M Kodama,
Mr. T Nakao, Mr. J Moriwaki, Ms. T Chinoi, Ms. M Yoshida, Mr. M Ikeda for their continues
guidance and support. For the administrative support, Ms. Y Sasaki, Ms. T Watanabe, Ms. J Fujinaka,
Ms. K Kawaguchi and Mr. M Miyahara has supported and provided every kind of support being sokind to me, especially Ms. Fujinaka has helped us by recording our video that have broadcasted from
Tokyo Television. Apart from this, most important my colleague VRs Ms. N Aye from Myanmar, Mr.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

4

N Prasantha from Sri Lanka and Ms. H Fadhl from Yemen has good cooperation in cordial
environment, is the most important part of the research period. The Management at DK House(International Resident House) is also memorable along with the Japanese Lessons from Mr.
Kawahara was splendid, as he not only teaches us the Japanese lessons, but also presumes the duty ofsocial and physiological counseling.
Our visit to Kobe City Emergency Management Center, Crisis Management Center at Kobe,
Emergency Control 119 Bureau and the Police Operation Rooms of Service 110, Hyogo Prefectural
Emergency Mgmt and Training Centre at Miki Disaster Management Park, Tsunami/Storm Surge
Disaster Prevention Station at Osaka, Osaka Regional Headquarter of the JMA at Osaka, Hyogo
Prefectural Government Disaster Management Canter, Japan Water Agency at Saitama wereknowlegable. The visit to Cabinet Office at Chiyoda-ku lead and presented by Ms. Sasegawa, Deputy
director general at Cabinet Office and meeting with the authorities of Cabinet office in charge ofdisaster management and attended her presentation at the office was real a great opportunity for us.
The visit at the underground water discharge cannel and reservoirs at Saitama was really memorable,
this have revealed if we desire we change the route of the river. Our visit to NuNoBiki Water Intake
Facility near to the Shin-Kobe, Kobe Water Science Museum at Kusudanichoto, Kobe City
Higashinada Water Sewage Treatment Plant and System at Kobe also has given the sense ofunderstanding of different perspective of the disaster management. Our great opportunity to visit toNagasaki at the Mt. Unzen Disaster Memorial Hall at Shimabara at Nagasaki Prefecture and the
Onokoba Kansisho Overvatory, around the mostly affected primary school compound and theMizunashi Honjin affected house with the preserved areas at Shimabara, Nagasaki Prefecture Public
Works Department with the presentations by Mr. Satoshi Sugasaki, by Seiichirousu Chaya and otherrelated authorities about the Nakasima River Flood Management and about their effect to control thesediment disaster in this region, Nagasaki Office of River and Road at Himi Omagari and the visit of
Atomic Bomb Museum at Mamaguchi Machi was really praiseworthy support for us that has provided
by the organizer.
We have attended dozens of presentations from different experts and professionals, just to remindsome of them, the presentation by IkedaSan and NakaoSan about the activities of the Sentinel Asia,
presentation by KiyoshiSan about the DM Policy in Japan, presentation by Ms. ShiomiSan about
Disaster Data and about the the disaster institution and regulations in Japan, presentation on DM
System in Japan and International Recovery Platform (IRP) activities by Mr. Shingo Kouchi,
Presentation on a community base rain gage presentation and demonstration by Mr. Hidetomi Oi, Mr.
Toshikatsu Omachi and Mr. Susumu Ueda, Volunteers for the promotion of community early warning
system, presentation from Mr. Kiyoshi Natori about the change pattern of disaster management inJapan focusing on the institutions involved, Presentation on Business Continuity Plan (BCP) against
future disaster by Dr. Seiichiro Fukushima from RKK Consulting Co. Ltd at Hibiya Library Tokyo,

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

5Presentation on Japanese experience of DRM and the expectation for the post 2015 framework for
DRR by Dr. Satoru Nishikawa, vice-president of Japan Metrological Agency, Presentation on flood
management, water resource utilization in Japan and the outline of the integrated water resource
management by Mr. Bobuyoki Ichhiara at JMA Saitama and the three-days presentation on Disaster
Map-making with QGIS by Mr. Tian, focusing on creation of Asia Map, Country Map and Hazard
Map from GIS Data was very knowledgeable and fruitful in future, as they have also given higher
level input to shape this research.
The most important inputs for this research, beside the net-surfing materials, the outcome, presentationand the discussion at various national and international level seminars and symposium. Some of themthat I have attended are the Symposium on Disaster Management in Rokkodai Campus at Kobe
University, International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering for Disaster Mitigation andRehabilitation at Kyoto University DPRI, International symposium - together with the people copingwith increasing water-related disasters in the world organized by International Center for Water
Hazard and Risk Management (ICHARM) at Grips College Roppongi Tokyo, Tohoku Forum for
Creativity: International Workshop on Implementation of Practical Disaster Risk Reduction at Tohoku
University at Sendai and Asian Studies Symposium 2014 at Kanagawa University, Yokohama
Campus, where along with the other participations, I have also got chance to make my 45 minutepresentation on 'The Natural Disaster in Nepal and Current Status and Issues ofDisasterManagement'. In the time attending the program, being as part of the seminar, we also got chance tohave a fielf visit of the Kesennuma, a heavily tsunami affected area, now in the reconstruction process
and the visit at Sendain Area tsunami affected area visit, especially visit of Gamou, Arahama andYriage, getting sense of the tsunami devastating impact and its recovery process. This visit has also
provided insight view of the disaster and the recovery process.
The Disaster Drills has prime important for response effectiveness and we have got opportunity forparticipation in some drills in including Ashiya City Disaster Response Drill, especially engagementof the community people in disaster response, Disaster Management Drill at Kyoto, focusing on thefire services in the ancient area of Kyoto and Toga Area BOKOMI (Disaster-Safe Welfare
Community) Drill, focusing on Fire extinguishing, Bucket Relay, Smoke Experience and Takidashi
Drill, I like to respect and acknowledge for this practical experience to have provided tous.

Last but not the least, I like to acknowledge the support and cooperation in any form, visible orinvisible way to make this research complete by any person from within my research net or outsidefrom the research net, all are equally important for me, I would like extend my thanks to the concern
all for this research. Thank you.
Pradip Kumar Koirala

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

6Research Theme : Institution for the management of natural disaster at national level, asharing between Nepal and Japan, in reference to south Asian countries
CONTENT
Executive Summary
Chapter one research plan : Research background, scope, theme and objective
1.1

Background as of growing concern for disaster

1.2

Desired field of research

1.3

Background and significance of the research

1.4

Scope of the research

1.5

Methodology of the research

1.6

Specific aim and expected result

1.7

Structure of the report/chapter plan

Chapter two literature review : Literature review on institutional mechanism of disastermanagement at national level
2.1

Policy institutions at national level

2.2

National institution for disaster management

2.3

Location of National Disaster Management Office (NDMO)

Chapter three disaster overview and management : disaster scenario and the DM System withexisting institutional and regulatory framework
3.1

Disaster in multi-hazard scenario

3.2

National disaster management context

3.3

Institutional arrangement for disaster management in few other countries

3.4

Specific institutions for the coordination of disaster management at national level

Chapter four DM institutions and regulations : institution and regulations for disastermanagement at national level in south Asian countries
4.1

Institution and regulation for the management of disaster at national level

4.2

Disaster management institution and regulation in Afghanistan

4.4

Disaster management institution and regulation in Bangladesh

4.3

Disaster management institution and regulation in Bhutan

4.5

Disaster management institution and regulation in India

4.6

Disaster management institution and regulation in Maldives

4.7

Disaster management institution and regulation in Pakistan

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

7

4.8

Disaster management institution and regulation in Sri Lanka

Chapter five disaster management system of Nepal : disaster occurrence and current disastermanagement institution and regulation in Nepal
5.1

Major earthquake incident in Nepal from history

5.2

Flood, landslide and fire as a regular occurrence disasters

5.3

Multi-hazard threats in Nepal

5.4

Legal and institutional framework of Nepal for disaster management

5.6

Disaster management institution and regulation in light of disaster event in Nepal

Chapter six disaster and institutions/regulation in Japan : disaster response and DM
institution/regulation in the light of disaster incidents
6.1

Disaster prone Japan and the major responses carried out

6.2

Response at the Great East Japan Earthquake

6.3

Linkages of disaster and policy changes in Japan

6.4

Disaster management institution and regulation in light of disaster events in Japan

Chapter seven conclusion and finding : a designated proper institution for overall disastermanagement at national level
7.1

Changing focus form response to preparedness

7.2

ERT vs. DPT, Emergency response vs. disaster preparedness types

7.3

Coordinating agency of government for DRR at national level

7.4

Disaster management as a business for all

7.5

Coordination from the central coordinating agency

7.6

Use of learned lessons

7.7

Consideration of past recommendation for institutional set up

7.8

Institution for disaster management at national level

7.9

Some alternatives for proper institutional set up

7.10

Proper institutional setup for overall DM at national level

Abbreviations
References

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

8Executive Summary
Disaster, a multi-faced phenomenon demanding multi-stakeholder's coordination from government,
non-government and international governance systems, always demands high authoritative national
attention not only in response but also in preparedness and recovery phases. Although many countries
has already started the process of dealing the disaster from its high-level authoritative institutions, theinstitutional value of disaster management has found coming across after adoption of Hyogo
Framework of Action in 2005, as targeting of creation of high-level government focal agency fordisaster management as contact point or focal authority in any country. The process has been foundadopted in south Asian region, as creating National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) in India,
Pakistan and Afghanistan. In line with this management through the proper institutional focus,
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives has created a separate Ministry for the overall management ofdisaster, not only to show the world community of their changing focus from response to preparedness
but also to do accordingly.
In the vein of development of changing focus from response to preparedness, only Nepal and Bhutan
have remained bit shy by managing and coordinating the overall disaster management through its
Home Ministry. Although several questions have emerged in the time of submission of HFA Update
about the focal institutional arrangement, the two nations continue to keep saying that their Home
Ministry is a focal ministry for disaster management and to minimize the pressure from outsiders, theyboth have created some sort of small arrangement, like Bhutan has created a Department of Disaster
Management under its Ministry of Home and Culture and also formulated a Disaster Management Act,
2013. In this same stream, Nepal has also created a Disaster Management Division at the Ministry ofHome Affairs and has started the process of enactment of new Disaster Management Act.
By comparing the existing scenario and situation of changing focus from response to preparedness, theefforts of Nepal and Bhutan is not seemed sufficient. Observing the sensitivity of the situation, Bhutan
is in the process of establishing a separate agency for disaster management. In the SAARC Region, if
Bhutan established a separate agency for the overall management of disaster management, then only
Nepal left behind managing and coordinating overall disaster management from its Home Ministry. It
has become necessary to revel its changing focus from response to preparedness and to perform theaction accordingly by proper institutional framework for overall disaster management at national levelwith proper Act.
Disaster management has been found studied and researched frequently on it's technical part like flood
preparedness techniques, landslide control measures for mitigation, strength of constructed dam,
community involvement in constructing local dams, earthquake resistance structure etc.. It is no doubt
the technical aspect is very important, but without having managerial tightening, the technical aspect

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

9always posses the deficiency of implementation. It is urgent need that we have to start the process ofdealing the disaster management from the managerial point of view. In this context as well, thenational level managerial view has been elaborated in this research in term of proper institutionalframework, that would be dealing with overall disaster management in the country at national level.
By realizing the disaster management as a business for all and in line with the changing focus form
response to preparedness, the coordinating agency of government for overall disaster management at
national level has found or has treated in this research with great importance. The research has tried towitness the intuitions and regulations of different eight countries of south Asian region as a
background concept for the findings, by taking reference of the Japanese disaster management system.
Every disaster has it's own lesson learned for the future. In Nepal, the lesson has been learned by
Ministry of Home Affairs, whose primary responsibility is to maintain peace and order in the nation.
So, lesson learned from MOHA will difficulty in materializing in terms of program and budget.
MOHA is responsible for search, rescue and relief, as it is doing its job in perfect way. Having said
this or having effective response action from MOHA, the preparedness part is always left behind. The
Ministry is having less focus on disaster preparedness in time of no-disaster. This is not the Ministry's
intention to have less work on DRR, but this is all about the designated role and responsibility alongwith its priority of maintaining peace and security all the time, or it is all about which system we haveadopted.
Disaster Management is said to have two types. Emergency Response Type (ERT) and Disaster
Preparedness Type (DPT). The ERT, Emergency Response Type is generally lead by Security Related
Agencies and it focuses more on response. It is a 'Cure Method' done for the disaster victims. In thistype at time of disaster, all related agencies will actively dedicate for better response and at the time ofno-disaster, the designated nodal agency for disaster management feels bit relax, as this method gives
less focus on disaster preparedness. In the ERT Model, the result can be seen immediate after theaction taken. In the same time, the DPT, Disaster Preparedness Type is lead by Development Related
Agencies, focuses more on preparedness. It is a 'Care Method' done for everyone. In this type at timeof no-disaster, all related agencies actively participate for better preparedness and at the time ofdisaster, the DPT cannot work well. In this type, the result can only be seen in indirect ways. So-many
countries including Nepal is adopting the ERT Model of DM and so-many countries including Japan isadopting the DPT Model of DM. The institutional set-up do matter to determine the types but, in somecase, although they have separate NDMA, but still there system considered as ERT, like Mangolia has
NDMA, US has FEMA and Russia has EMERCON as a NDMA. But their NDMA is controlled by
Security Related Agencies. So, although they have separate focal agency for disaster management,
their system still considered as ERT. To have shift from ERT to DPT, it is necessary to have the
NDMA, but it should not have to be controlled by Security Related Agency, as it is called the locationof National Disaster Management Office (NDMO). In Nepal scenario, if we create the NDMA under

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

10

the Ministry of Home, then the drawbacks that has made by Mongolia and Russia, controlling the
NDMA by security related agency and the question of location of NDMO, we are going to repeat
again. To have a proper shift from ERT to DPT, it is most important to establish a separate focal
agency and the location of the Agency do matters to make a focus on preparedness. In this way, only
the ERT or DPT methods solely does not work in the real case scenario, so some sort of balance isneeded between them.
Immediate after disaster, lot more lifeline utility services has to be restored in no-time, with proper
relief for live and livelihood as well. Japan is seem doing the job properly, cause it has allocated its
role to different central, prefectural and city level government and also it has incorporated the role ofprivate sector in disaster management council. This has become possible for Japan, because it ismanaging the overall activities of disasters from Cabinet Office Disaster Management, from where allnational level coordination is possible, directly under Prime Minister and Disaster Minister. In Nepal,
if we could have manage the overall disaster from the Cabinet Office of Nepal, then it could have
implemented the lesson learned in past. Consideration of past recommendation for institutional set up
from different background documents both from national and international level's accepted agencies
along with the Periodic Plan Document of Nepal, It has been tried to proposed a institutional proposal
as National Disaster Management Authority in past, as placing this institutional arrangement in the
proposed disaster management act, but this process has return back without getting approval due tosome other consideration of the then parliament, allowing the initiation of the process again.
Institution for disaster management at national level is always important, as it shapes and widens thedisaster management activities at national level. The research has conclude it's finding with the highvalued three types of national organizations categorically 1. Disaster Management Bureau (lead by one
minister) at the Office of Prime Minister and Council of Minister, 2. A separate Disaster Management
Ministry and, 3. National Disaster Management Authority (independent), the Office of Prime Ministerand Council of Minister as the approach office of the authority. By analyzing and considering the pros
and cons of these three best alternatives/options, based on the analysis in this research at the respective
chapters of south Asian countries experience along with Japanese system experience, it has beendrawn for findings one as a best options.
It has been concluded here that it is better for the country to adopt the changing focus to preparedness
from response with proper institutional setup at national level to ease and to expedite the coordination
capacity at national level.

Regarding the proper institutional setup, among these three type of

institutional arrangements, the option of creating the Disaster Management Bureau (lead by adesignated Minister) at the Office of Prime Minister Office is proper and suitable institutionalarrangement at national level for the management and coordination of overall activities of all cycle ofdisaster management. Since the disaster management is multi-tasked agenda, all stakeholders from

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

11government and non-government has to assume their role and responsibility with proper coordinationfrom the apex coordinating body. It has been also seen that the coordinator should have higher
authoritative hierarchy in the bureaucratic system of government to ease and to expedite thecoordination capacity. Based in this presumption and analysis, in that case, it has been concluded thatthe best option for overall coordination for disaster management at national level is the Bureau, thatworks directly under the disaster management council headed by Prime Minister with threeconsecutive sub-committee for prevention, response and recovery lead by the sector Ministers. Thisconclusion and findings does not mean to under-estimate the national situation and condition taking
into account, the system varies from national culture and system to respective culture and system.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

12

CHAPTER ONE : RESEARCH PLAN
Research background, scope, theme and objective
1.1

Background as of growing concern for disaster

Disaster has been commonly identified as 'a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or asociety causing widespread human, material, economic, or environmental losses which exceed theability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources (ICIMOD, 2007). 'Disasterrisk is continuing to increase, mostly because greater numbers of vulnerable people and assets are located in
exposed areas (Tom Mitchell, 2014). The vulnerability of disaster is increasing globally, regionally andnationally. Regarding the disaster events and its effect trend, the SDMC Report states 'the year 2011
witnessed a slight decrease in the occurrence of natural disasters globally. As against 373 natural
disaster events in the year 2010, 302 natural disaster events were recorded in the year 20111. Asagainst a total of 207 million people affected due to natural disasters in the year 2010, around 206
million people were affected due to natural disasters during the year 2011. As against 296,800
casualties during the year 2010, only around 29,782 people were killed during 2011. The economic
damage to property and infrastructure due to natural disasters during the year 2011 is estimated ataround 366 billion US$ as against 109 billion during the year 2010 (SDMC, 2011). This recent figure
has revealed the growing importance of disaster management both at national and regional level.
Not only in the global arena, the disaster and its impact is getting widening in in Asia and Pacificalong with South Asian Regions. 'The Asia and the Pacific region will be remembered as large-scaledisasters with devastating impacts on economies, communities and above all the lives of people acrossour region. The Great East Japan Earthquake, Tsunami and the ensuing nuclear disaster, as well as theSoutheast Asian floods, which so severely affected Thailand, were major contributors to the staggering$294 billion in regional economic losses, representing 80 per cent of global losses due to disasters in2011 (UNISDR 2012). The losses has triggering impact of developing countries as well.
The economic losses from disaster is also significant not only in Globally but also it has significant
impact in the South Asian Region. A Background Paper from SDMC states that 'The disasters havebeen eroding, over minutes, hours or days hard earned gains of development of years and decades. It isestimated that the countries of the region have been loosing between 2 to 20% of their GDP and 12 to
66% of the revenues on account of disasters every year (SDMC, 2008 ), crating 'the global cost ofnatural hazards in 2011 was estimated to be $380 billion (NIDM, 2013). If properly managed thedisaster, then it has economic benefit, in other case it can create harmful environment for development.
The Paper further illustrates this issue under the sequence of 'Disaster limits development,
Development causes disaster risk and Development reduces disaster risk (SDMC, 2008).
Natural disasters have various types of impacts including loss of life and property, if not properly

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

13managed the all activities at the all cycles of disasters. The same level of disaster, as Japan has
experienced in Kobe would have higher damages of property and losses of lives if this has happened
in another part of Asia. 'In coping with the Great East Japan Earthquake, Japan’s advanced DRM
system, built up during nearly 2,000 years of coping with natural risks and hazards, proved its worth.
The loss of life and property could have been far greater if the country’s policies and practices had
been less effective (world bank, 2012b).
No matter how strength the search and rescue forces the country has and no matter how about the
preparation for effective response, 'the experience at Great Hansin-Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake of 1995
reveled that more then 80 percent people died because of immediate house collapse and fire (Hyogo,2010), This has shocked our preparation of strengthening the search and rescue capacity, being notmoving ahead properly with the complete implementation of building code. Kathmandu valley is in
maximum threat of vulnerability, as SDMC Journal states 'A pilot study in a locality of Kathmandu
Valley shows that 84 per cent are vulnerable and 16 per cent are non-vulnerable buildings, and almost
all adobe buildings would severely collapse if the area experienced an earthquake of intensity IX MMI(SDMC, 2010). In this case, the absence of proper national authority is highly critical for the
management of all aspect of disaster cycles.
In terms of poor management of disaster, the people of developing countries are more suffering fromthe disaster losses. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at an IDNDR Program on July 1999 has rightly
pointed out that 'it is no accident that 90 percent of disaster victims worldwide are in developing
countries. Poverty and population pressures are forcing growing numbers of poor people to live inharm’s way – flood plains, earthquake-prone zones and unstable hills. Their extraordinary
vulnerability is perhaps the single most important cause of disaster casualties (UNISDR, 2000).' To
reduce the losses in life and property, it is utmost important to have a definite thought for the proper
coordinating agency at National level.
This can be envisaged through the role of preparedness and mitigation, along with the preparedness to
response. It can be further emphasized the role of institutions involved in disaster management at
National level, complemented by the Institutionalism Theory at large. The institutions found country
to country-wise are different in category and in nature, some are purely governmental, while some aresemi-government and non-government. These institutions are found complemented and supported bygovernment and non-government alliances and networks as well (Hyogo, 2010).
It would be interesting and knowledgeable to academic, to practice-holders and to the general people
at large to see the role and function of national institutions, making differences for the management of
natural disaster, especially focusing on the national institutions of Nepal and Japan, what are they interms of type, nature and function. It would be more realistic and more knowledge, to provide the

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

14depth-view for the institutions evolved in disaster managements at national level, if the institutions
would be compared within south Asian as well.
1.2

Desired field of research

To manage the overall activities of the all cycle of disaster, it is necessary to have separate dedicatedgovernmental organization in place at national level, mean the necessity of National Disaster
Management Agency (NDMA). Some countries do have National Disaster Management Authority andsome countries have separate Ministry for disaster management. Like at south Asian region, if wecheck India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, they have NDMA; and Bangladeshi, Sri Lanka and Maldives
are having Separate Ministry of Disaster Management, but Bhutan and our country Nepal aremanaging disaster through Ministry of Home Affairs, assuming the MOHA as as NDMA. It can befound three types of Governmental Organization dealing with disaster management along with South
Asian Region.
There is also a need for proactive measures, bearing in mind that the phases of relief, rehabilitation andreconstruction following a disaster are windows of opportunity for rebuilding the livelihoods andplanning and reconstruction of physical and socio-economic structures, in a way that will build
community resilience and reduce vulnerability to future disaster risks (SDMC, 2011a). This shift indimension of disaster management and the new traditional way of managing disaster in Nepal,
focusing on response has drag this research as a desired field of study.
Japan is managing disasters with bit different ways of national institutional arrangement. Prime
Minister heads the Central Disaster Management Council, the council comprises different ministries
and secretaries with other related stakeholders as per necessity. They decide a designatedadministrative authority/organs and also a designated public corporation.

The role of the council is toformulate and execute the disaster management plans, to coordinate with different governmental andnon-governmental organizations, to formulate and promote the execution of the basic disastermanagement plans and also to formulate and execute the disaster management operation plans. It
coordinate with specific Minister for disaster management, the minister works directly under Prime
Minister, as his subordinate. The Minister does not any specify ministry to administer, his role andfunction is to coordinate with all related government, semi-government and non-government agencies.
The same goes true with prefectural level with Governors, as he leads the Prefectural Disaster
Management Council. This is a bit unique and bit different system of Japan than other so many Asian
countries.
It would be interesting and important to know the suitable type of the organization to have better andcoherent disaster management both at center and local level. Also, some countries are managing
overall disaster management activities through the regular and multi-tasked ministry or agencies.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

15Some countries are having specific research agencies like Japan's Fire and Disaster Management
Agency, Asian Disaster Reduction Centre and so on. Some countries like Nepal lack these types of
specific governmental agency to manage the disaster. Up to now, the Ministry of Home Affairs ismanaging the cycle of disaster management at national level, where as some other line ministries istaking step in at the various activities of disaster management, both from preparedness and response
front. Desired field for research or the research question would be "does it makes any difference tohave or not to have any designated specify agency like NDMA for the overall management of disaster
cycles."
1.3

Background and significance of the research

Proper institutional set-up for overall disaster management at national level is the core concept of theresearch and it has taken south Asian Region along with Japan as a base of comparison. The south
Asian Region has been chosen because 'South Asia is exposed to a variety of hazards due to thegeo-climatic characteristics of the region. These hazards range from avalanches and earthquakes to
Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOF) in the Himalayas in the North, droughts and floods in the Plains,and cyclones that originate in the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. Importantly, many countries in
the region share common geological formations and river basins, and natural (world bank, 2012). The
past researches in disaster management are mostly found in its technical part of disaster. The
managerial aspect of disaster management has fond overlooked. It has been tried to analyze thedisaster management from managerial aspect in this research. In the same time, in worldwide, it has
found the changing dynamics of disaster management from response to preparedness. The FAO states
this concept in this way 'in order to achieve the stated outcome by 2015, the HFA emphasizes a shift
from reactive emergency relief (which nonetheless remains important) to pro-active disaster risk
reduction in the pre-disaster stages by strengthening prevention, mitigation and preparedness. A related
approach that is gaining widespread support is that of disaster risk management which combines,
through a management perspective, the concept of prevention, mitigation and preparedness withresponse (FAO, 2008). This changing shift has been analyzed in this research from national
institutional, regulation and management perspective.
In this context, this research would take a base of literature review of the existing literature about theexisting specific agency of disaster management; also do the literatures review of some other country
those who are not having specific disaster management agency in place. The research plan will befollowed by the field visit of some of the selected agencies within Japan. I will also go through thelegal and institutional backup for these agencies. I will be more focusing on the existing legal andinstitutional setup of Japan, taking case scenario of specific Nepalese case, where there is no separate
specific agency. The problem of exiting framework can be seen in two ways. Those countries that are
not having separate disaster management agency lack coherent and collaborative action for
preparedness, response and recovery. The all efforts are fragmented and uncoordinated. Whether these

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

16

countries need separate disaster management agency or not could be one issue. The second issue
would be those countries who are having separate disaster management agencies, how to have better
coordination. The disaster management activities are being done by lot of multi-tasked agencies andall agencies have their own separate role and authority. In that case, how the single agency coordinates
or commands the all agencies. There are two gaps as well, that I will try to find out answer under the
research program.
1.4

Scope of the research

It is vital to start reversing trends of increasing disaster (Tom Mitchell, 2014) and the institutions involved
from government at national level has its great significance. Nepal and Japan are having different type ofInstitutional Arrangement to manage disaster and different South Asian countries are also managing
disaster through different institutional setup. There are lot more agencies working for the managementof disaster management in the country and one specific agencies has designated to do the overallmanagement and coordination in the area of disaster management. Different countries have different
types of institutional arrangement with different legal set-up and the major one are :Nepal

Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Home Affairs
Natural Calamity (Relief ) Act, 1982 (1st revision in 1989 and 2nd in 1992 Sep)

Japan

Cabinet Office Disaster Mgmt, (Designate one Minister for Disaster Mgmt)
Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act, 1961

Afghanistan Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority (ANDMA)
National Law on disaster response, management and preparedness in the Islamic
Sate of Afghanistan (updated on 2006 and 2011)
Bangladesh Disaster Mgmt and Relief Division, Ministry of Food and Disaster Mgmt
Disaster Management Act, 2012
BhutanDepartment of Disaster Management, Ministry of Home and Culture Affairs
Disaster Management Act of Bhutan, 2013

India

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)
Disaster Management Act, 2005

Maldives

National Disaster Mgmt Center, Ministry of Defense and National Security Services
Disaster Management Act, 2006

Pakistan

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)
National Disaster Management Act, 2010

Sril Lanka

National Disaster Mgmt Center, Ministry of Disaster Mgmt and Human Rights

Sri lank Disaster Management Act No. 3 of 2005
It would be highly interesting and knowledgeable to see the different institutional arrangements andregulation backups in those country, with the role of the institutions and the overall process differences
between these countries to have disaster managed. while comparing the institutions and regulations indifferent countries, the more focus will be levied on the the arrangements of Japan and Nepal.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

17

1.5

Methodology of the research

The basic foundation of the research is to visualize the disaster management form managerial
perspective. Lot more literatures can be found visualizing the disaster management from the technicallevel study. This research has tried to observe the secondary publication and previous research finding
and publications in the area. The recommendation from the prevention web and the Hyogo Frameworkhas taken as a basic in term of proper institutional arrangement. It has not taken the primary data for its
inputs, rather rely on the secondary observations of the publications. Net base Search and document
review has been used in the process of research. The key word for Searches of databases wereconducted on primary key words with a 'or', and also combining modifier strings with 'and' operators.
On the whole, the more qualifiers added the more restricted the search so in conducting the searches ofthe fields and sub-fields separately, search sensitivity was increased.
Database search terms and strings were also employed for the website searches as appropriate. The
main primary key words and search are 'institution, organization, disaster, disaster management,
disaster risk reduction, capacity development, institutional development, capacity building, disastercapacity, disaster capacity building, disaster fragile, government/non-government capacity building fordisaster risk reduction, DM in academic/non-academic literature, institutional arrangements for DM,
DM system in South Asian Region and many more disaster related words' at various search engine
websites. The visited websites and the gone through the publication has all been listed the reference
section of the research paper.
In the time of research, there were some visiting programs, as we have visited Hyogo Prefectural
Disaster Management Office, Kobe City DM Office, Japan Metrological Agency Osaka, Cabinet
Office Disaster Management Office and Japan Water Agency Office at Saitama, along with somedisaster related museums. The research has also enriched with the visiting programs at Kobe City
Emergency Management Center, DM Drill Programs at various places, Tsunami/Storm Surge Disaster
Prevention Station, Water science museum and Sewage Treatment Plant at Kobe along with attending
international seminars Geotechnical Engineering for DM at Kyoto University, ICHARM Symposiumin GRIPS, the symposium at Kobe University. The visit at Cabinet office at Tokyo, Public Works
Department at Nagasaki and Prefectural DM office at Sendai has further enriched the research forbetter findings. The learning from the visit has been incorporated in the research. In the same time,
there are lot more questions related to this research has been asked to the authority and and to thepresenter and their answers has taken into consideration in designing the research.
As an administrative arrangement for the research, the ADRC has has provided the round-trip air ticket
to recipient country, provided the the full accommodation along with fully furnished office space with
net-linked computer and other accessories. The center will also arrange the side meeting with different
stakeholder, organize lecture and seminars and exposure field-level to bring the better performance in

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

18

the research. The ADRC staff has gathered various information and knowledge, along with theirpresentations to the researcher as a backup for the research. The sending organization, Ministry ofHome Affairs has granted leave to the researcher for the designated period with full support of salary
and allowance to the family members for this period. The researcher, myself will contribute my wholetime, effort and patient to produce a good research. The tri-partite arrangement for this research will
expedite the process of presuming the research and making praiseworthy research findings.
1.6

Specific aim and expected result

The proposed research work, about the rational and applicability to the country like Nepal, will give
fruitful thought and the way forward to us whether we need separate agency for DM at national levelor not. Nepal is in a process of formulating new disaster management act, in place of response focusedold Natural Calamity Relief Act, 1982, the finding of the research will be really helpful to shape futuredisaster related policies. Since many developing countries lack the administrative, organizational,
financial, and political capacity to effectively cope with disasters, the poor become particularly
vulnerable. Low-income countries have suffered only 9% of worldwide disasters since 1980, butsuffered 48% of the fatalities (world bank, 2012a) and the knowledge and its applicability of the roleof national institutions and regulations has become important at national context. This specific aim hastaken consideration while dealing with the institutions and regulation of different selected countries,
which is believed to be fruitful for general readers, practice-holders and academia. Since theresearcher is working for the Disaster Management Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs in thecapacity of the section head of disaster study and research section, the initiation of the policy and theresearch at this research at ADRC will have sincere policy feedback to the Government of Nepal in thearea of disaster management.
'Disaster management is increasingly important, as the global economy becomes more interconnected,
as environmental conditions shift, and as population densities rise in areas around the world. A
proactive approach to risk management can reduce the loss of human life and avert economic andfinancial setbacks. To be maximally effective, and to contribute to stability and growth over the longterm, the management of risks from natural disasters should be mainstreamed into all aspects ofdevelopment planning in all sectors of the economy (NIDM, 2013). In line with the policy shift, theresearch will have evidence and literature base findings, which will helpful to shape the policy of thosecountries that are not having separate disaster management agencies at national level. This results also
help to those countries who are having separate disaster management agencies to have coherent andcollaborative efforts for further improvements. The results from the research will also show the rightpath to manage disaster by institutional setup. The expected results from the research would be therational and possibility of the transformation of the idea of single powerful governmental organizationfor overall management of disaster.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

19

The finding of the research will be shared to the colleagues by organizing in-house sharing and also byorganizing the national disaster platform meetings. As Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home
Affairs is hosting the National Disaster Risk Reduction Platform at a minimum three times in a year;
the finding of the research will be shared to that platform to have common understanding about thatdesignated agency for disaster management in place. The praiseworthy performance happened inJapan and other countries will be disseminated at different forums, including different official setups
and the possibility for the transformation of this idea, based on our existing institutional capacity will
be presumed. The drawbacks and problems that those countries are being faced in terms of better
coordination will be further discussed. The research finding and its way forwards will surely not only
benefit to our organization and broadly, to the nation, also enhancing the further professional career to
expedite my further academic research in the area of disaster management.
1.7

Structure of the report/chapter planThis reports consists of seven chapters, the first chapter deals with the general research proposal andthe basis of the research with the background, theme and objective. The second chapter tries to explore
the existing literature and findings about the institutional and regulation issues for the disastermanagement at national level. The third chapter exhibits current Disaster scenario and the DM Systemwith existing institutional and regulatory framework of Nepal in brief. The forth chapter focuses more
the institutional arrangement for disaster management with their regulation systems in different chosencountries. The fifth chapter deals with the disaster management pattern of Nepal with reference withthe past disasters linking the disaster management institutions and regulation and the patter has been
tried to find out in the case of Japan in sixth chapter. Finally the last but not the least, the seventh
chapter has wrapped up with the conclusion and finding, focusing on the designated proper institution
for overall disaster management at national level. The Chapters are planned in a way to show theDisaster Management related regulations and institutions in that order starting from south AsianCountries, more focusing on Japan and Nepal along with the background of disaster and disastermanagements, that will further followed by lesson learned and findings.
This research lacks the basic or primary data, as the performance level can be derived from thebeneficiary level. The report is totally based on the conversations with the designated authorities atdifferent disaster management institutions of Japan, some lecture and classes from experts and someofficial visit. The has taken the experience of the researcher at the national level governance system as
one of the basic foundation for the research. The web addresses of different disaster management
related institution both at Nepal and Japan, along with the the institutions from south Asian Regions
are the main source of information and findings, that may limit the scope and validity of the findings.
The research has some finding, based on the referenced documents analysis and also based on the
researcher inherit experience in the field, this might create some sort of biasness and improperly,
creating further limited scope of the research.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

20

CHAPTER TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature review on institutional mechanism of disaster management at national level
2.1

Policy institution at national level

Institution has a high importance for proper management of any discipline. As FAO has stated in his
paper 'institutions play a key role in operationalizing the different phases of the DRM framework andmediating the link between development, DRM and humanitarian actions. Without institutions, there
would be no action and DRM would remain a concept on paper (FAO, 2008). Disaster management
demands a comprehensive strategic management with institutional framework at national level, as the
response focused agencies is not enough. 'The UN General Assembly resolution 54/219 on the
successor arrangements to IDNDR called for the implementation and further development of a'comprehensive strategy to maximize international cooperation in the field of natural disasters, based
upon an effective division of labor, from prevention to early warning, response, mitigation,
rehabilitation and reconstruction, including through capacity building at all levels, and thedevelopment and strengthening of global and regional approaches that take into account regional,
sub-regional, national and local circumstances and needs, as well as the need to strengthen
coordination of national emergency response agencies in natural disasters (UNISDR, 2000).

Properpolicy, strategy and institutions have high importance in any discipline and this importance has evenmuch higher in the area of disaster management, cause this discipline does not stand along, it needs
broader and meaningful participation from the community. 'While people should own the problems,consequences and challenges of any mitigation and/or preparedness initiative, it is necessary to see
people's involvement in a broader perspective, which is related to policy and strategy (Rajib, 2012). In
light of this, the proper institutional framework for DRM at national level has been considered here fordiscussion.
Institutions, in this research paper is considered as 'an established organization or foundation,
especially one dedicated some specific subject and area, an organization or establishment founded fora specific purpose, such as a hospital, church, company, or college' this meaning has been traced ourfrom the 'from the free dictionary' from free dictionary website (Farlex, 2014 ed.), as this meaning
goes well with disaster management at national level. The term institution itself has broad meaning, as
it coins with social, political and economical context, but in this research paper it has considered justas an organizational context. The organization comprised of human, financial and material resources, it
all come together with set-up, rules and procedures. 'Complex organizations, comprises ofmanufactories firms, hospitals, schools, armies, community agencies are ubiquitous in modern
societies, but or understanding of them is limited and segmented. the fact that impressive andsometimes frightening consequences flow from organizations suggests that some individuals have had
considerable insight into these social instruments. But insight and private experiences may generate
private understandings without producing a public body of knowledge adequate for the preparation of

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

21

a next generation of administrators, for designing new styles of organizations for new purposes, forcontrolling organizations, or for appreciations of distinctive aspects of modern societies (James, 2007).
The organization in this context has used the general definition and connotation as described in someliterature of the discipline 'the allocation of responsibilities, the grouping of functions,decision-making, coordination, control and reward-all these are fundamental requirements for thecontinued operation of an organization (John, 1984). The institutional analysis for proper disastermanagement has no doubt high important as the second of the three strategic goals of the HFA is 'thedevelopment and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities at all levels, in particular at
the community level, that can systematically contribute to building resilience to hazards (HFA, 2005).
The signatory countries of HFA were in a process of creating a dedicated national agency to show theirpolicy shift from response to preparedness.
2.2

National institution for disaster management

Disaster risk in Asia is much more then any other continents. 'Asia continues to be the most affected
continent, with more than 62.5 per cent of deaths caused by disasters and 89.7 per cent of the affected
people. Africa, Asia and the Americas together account for 87 per cent of the total deaths associatedwith disasters during the period 2000-2010. Europe and North America are less affected in terms ofdeath and injury but more in terms of economic impacts. The 66 disasters reported in Europe in 2007
accounted for 28 per cent of the world’s economic losses from natural hazards but only five per cent ofpeople killed globally (ISDR, 2010a). 'The world has witnessed an alarming increase in the frequency
and severity of disasters: 240 million people, on average, were affected by natural disasters
world-wide each year between 2000 and 2005. During each of these six years, these disasters claimed
an average of 80,000 lives and caused damage of an estimated US$ 80 billion (FAO, 2008). The
impact of disaster is high in South Asian Region as, 'SAR is highly exposed and highly vulnerable tothe impacts of hazard events. Between 1971 and 2009, South Asia has experienced 1,017 natural
disasters that meet the criteria of EMDAT (10 or more people reported killed, 100 or more people
reported affected, declaration of a state of emergency and call for international assistance). The
absolute number of disasters has increased steadily starting with 8 reported disasters in 1971 to morethan 40 in 2009 – a fivefold increase. These events have cumulatively affected over 2 billion people
and have caused over 800,000 deaths. Direct economic losses recorded over this time period amountto over US $80 billion (world bank, 2012).
This sever situation has pressurized the world community to work hard, especially from the national
context with proper institutional and managerial framework to tackle the disasters in future. 'Disasterhas been managing in a convention methods in many countries, as after disaster the forces designated
for response intensively engaged for search, rescue and relief along with the support of some otherhumanitarian agencies. The approach is changing now, it is getting more focus on disaster risk
reduction from disaster response. Disaster risk reduction activities are directed towards reducing risk

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

22

at its source with the aim of preventing hazards before they become disasters. As a consequence of theincreasing frequency and severity (measured in both the loss of life and property damage) of disasters,
countries are increasingly studying disaster risk reduction methodologies along with the moreconventional post-disaster response measures (EFDRR, 2014). The research has tried to analyze thesituation based on the new dimensional changes.
The several literature found in disaster management are mostly deals with its technical aspect. It is no
doubt the technical aspect is very important, but without having managerial tightening, the technicalaspect always posses the deficiency of implementation. It is urgent need that we have to start theprocess of dealing the disaster management from the managerial point of view. In this context as well,
the national level managerial view has to be elaborated. Due to having one specific disaster focal pointin the country, there seems some some problem arises for coordination. This has mentioned in
SAARC Reporting Series Paper, reads in this way 'a number of scientific, technical and researchorganizations are involved with risk assessments. These are under the administrative control ofdifferent Ministries and authorities of the Member States. SDMC finds it extremely difficult to
network with such institutions. Even the national focal points on disaster management in the Member
States have been finding it difficult to coordinate with theses agencies for conducting studies (SAARC,
2013). This finding of SDMC can be treated as an importance of designated focal national agency forthe overall management and coordination of disaster at national level.
The Focal Point or Focal Organization at National level has to be considered as a powerfulcoordinating agency, that has to coordinate with all Ministries and Agencies. This has been widely
accepted in the area of DRR at National level. This can be seen as 'the focal point is the key agency
that has the authority and resources to coordinate all related bodies for disaster management such as
ministries, international donor agencies, NGOs and the private sector. The focal point agency needs acore of well-trained staff and adequate resources and should be supported by appropriate legislation
and authority for decision making and implementation (InterWorks, 1998). 'The focal point is the key

agency that has the authority and resources to coordinate all related bodies for disastermanagement such as ministries, international donor agencies, NGOs and the private sector. The
focal point agency needs a core of well-trained staff and adequate resources and should be supported
by appropriate legislation and authority for decision making and implementation (InterWorks, 1998).
In Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs is playing a National Focal Point for Disaster Management.
According to this definition, it still needs proper authority and resources to coordinate all relatedbodies for disaster management, along with insufficiency of trained staff and adequate resources withappropriate legislation and authority for decision making and implementation. To have better managed
the disaster, Japan has envisioned the Cabinet Office Disaster Management Concept, that is lead by
one Disaster Management Minister with proper offices at Cabinet Office.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

23'In light with the recommendation of the Hyogo Framework of Action to establish the National
Disaster Management Office, NDMO (HFA, 2005), in Nepal, it is recommended to have a national
independent and powerful agency, named National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) by
National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (NSDRM, 2009). By taking consideration with theJapanese system, the proposed Authority could a independent, but it does not seem to be able tocoordinate with all government and non-government stakeholders, including Ministries, Department
and Agencies. In this research paper, it has been tried to analyze the proposed system in comparing
with the Japanese system.
2.3 Location of National Disaster Management Office (NDMO)
Regarding the location of the national disaster management office has major implications for effective
horizontal connections across ministries. 'If the NDMO is located in a ministry then the minister islikely to be the chairman of the national disaster committee, whereas, if the NDMO is located in theprime minister’s office, then the prime minister or deputy prime minister is usually chairman of thecommittee. Case studies from Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Trinidad and Tobago clearly identify theadvantages of locating the NDMO in the Prime Minister’s and President’s office. The primaryadvantage is that it provides the NDMO with greater authority in coordinating and integrating the
inputs from various line ministries. When the NDMO is located in a line ministry, it may not be able
to guarantee the representation and participation of the other line ministries (InterWorks, 1998). Thisobservation has Clearly defines the position and location of NDMO in the country. This situation in
Nepal, the coordination role lies with Ministry of Home Affairs, since it is not lies with prime
minister's office, it might be having some sort of coordination and resource allocation problem in
Nepal.
The InterWorks, 1998 also have some recommendation regarding the location of NDMO, as it is in thePrime Minister’s or President’s Office, need to ensure more adequate connections and authority rather
than location in a line ministry and before a NDMO is relocated to the Prime Minister’s Office, it isnecessary to assess whether or not the Office has the long-term capacity to take over responsibility fordisaster management. The Office also needs to have professional credibility among the line ministries
to be effective at coordinating their inputs (InterWorks, 1998).
The DRR policy of any government does not stand alone, as it comes with the various facet of thegovernance aspects. 'To comprehend the governance policies on disaster risk reduction of different
countries, an examination of legislatures, administrations, legal systems, property rights, and politicaland financial institutions helps to assess the actors responsible for transparency and accountability of
DRR work. Within the scope of 'good enough risk governance', the importance of capacities andstructures of central and local administrations should be emphasized. It is crucial to take into
consideration DRR work in the unique national context. However, across national settings the

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

24

following factors are characteristics of risk governance: accountability, legality, impartiality,transparency, participation, coordination, subsidiary, effectiveness, and education-awareness and must
be taken into account by central and local governments in respect of DRR (EFDRR, 2014). Along withthe location, authority and coordination capacity, some other major factor for governance has been
considered in this research paper.
The primary base for the visited literatures are the visualization of the disaster management disciplinefrom purely technical ground to managerial aspect, the national level shift from disaster response todisaster preparedness, creation of national disaster management offices at national level and thelocation of the NDMO with proper power of coordination along with various type and patterns of thenational agencies in some countries. 'It's been recommended to improve national disaster management
structures with the proper characteristic like greater resources for NDMOs and further training of
NDMO staff are required, clearly defined authority for coordination and possible acquisition of
resources of other ministries is more important for the NDMO than having its own resources andensuring that the structure operates as designed and committees meet as required by providing
adequate resources and motivation to all levels (InterWorks, 1998). This has taken consideration to
analyze the situation in case of Nepal in defining the proper national disaster management offices
structure.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

25

CHAPTER THREE : DISASTER OVERVIEW AND MANAGEMENT
Disaster scenario and the DM System with existing institutional and regulatory framework
3.1

Disaster at a multi-hazard scenario

As 'disasters result from the combination of three key elements: i) natural hazards, including
earthquakes, cyclones, excess rainfall, Tsunamis, etc.; ii) exposure (of people and property to thesehazards); and iii) vulnerability (of the human and physical capital exposed) due to physical, social,economic, governance, and environmental factors that increase the susceptibility of a community to
the impact of a natural hazard (world bank, 2012), the disasters are getting higher concern, simply
not because of it have various types of impacts including loss of life and property, if not properly
managed the all activities at the all cycles of disasters, but it the same time it is creating huge losses
in the overall world economy. As GAR 2013 main findings, 'disasters have growing impact on
business, globalised supply chins created new vulnerabilities, business loses its lifeline whendisasters damage public infrastructure, small and medium enterprises are particularly at risk,
disasters undermine longer-term competitiveness and sustainability, the disaster phenomena isgetting higher concern all over the world (GAR, 2013). The disasters have various kind of losses.
The three dimensions of disaster losses: 'mortality, national economic losses and livelihood losses,
assessed as disaster-induced impoverishment (Tom Mitchell, 2014) has high significant. Having
importance of these type of losses, the disaster scenario and management has taken into
consideration.
The fragile geology and steep topography has made Nepal the 20th topmost disaster prone country in
the world. Nepal is in a threat of multiple natural hazards. Flood, landslide and fire is frequent
occurrence disasters. 'It faces high magnitudes and intensities of a multitude of natural hazards suchas flood, landslide, earthquake, fire, cold waves, hailstone, windstorm, thunderbolt, cloudburst,
drought, Glacier lake outburst flood (GLOF), avalanches and epidemics. Unstable steep slopes andfragile geological formation of a young mountain range with heavy monsoon rainfall leads to a wide
range of geological and hydro-meteorological disasters across the country. The variation ingeological characteristics, together with torrential rain during rainy season, result in landslides,
debris flows, floods, etc.
The recent date has shown that the thunderstorm and the epidemics are becoming more common
disasters, which are killing the higher number of people in the recent days (NDR, 2011). The country
has remained at the top 20th list of the most multi-hazard prone countries in the world. The country
is ranked 4th, 11th and 30th in term of climate change, earthquake and flood risk respectively(UNDP/BCPR, 2004). Other disasters in Nepal are drought, storm, hailstorm, avalanches,
cold-waves, forest fires and GLOF. Nepal poses in an average two death per disaster and one disasterper day. According to the data, more than 30,000 thousand people are killed by anyone of the disaster,

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

26

leaving more then 60,000 people injured; that has created huge loss of human lives and property.
(DisInventar Database)
Apart from these, several other human-induced disasters are reported in the country, Nepal isaffected by many natural hazard. The recent data shows that the frequency of natural disasters suchas floods, landslides and fire have increased, especially during past three decades and could be
attributed to uncontrolled development, environmental degradation or human interventions. Evidence
has suggested that the human interventions can increase or decrease the frequency or severity ofcertain types of hazards such as landslides, floods, drought, etc. or cause hazards that were notpreviously experienced. With the ever increasing growth of population, safe land is in scarce andthere is a greater tendency for people to occupy marginal lands thereby increasing their susceptibility
to hazards.
In this context, managing disasters in this current period requires a concerted as well as an integrated
national effort which needs to be coordinated at all levels. The Government of Nepal has beenworking to reduce risks through mainstreaming disaster management into sectoral development for
preventing the occurrence of disasters, mitigating their impact and ensuring that there is adequate
preparedness to ensure an effective response. Historical records show that Nepal has been sufferingfrom various types of disaster. The entire country is prone to earthquake as well. While the hilly
areas, with rough topography and very young geology, are very prone to landslides, the lowland
Terai is prone to floods. Avalanches, GLOFs and snowstorms are common in high hills of Nepal.
The floods of 1993, 2008 (Koshi Flood) and 2012 and the Jajarkot diarrhea outbreak of 2009 was
major disasters recorded in Nepal. The avalanches has been experienced in 2012, where huge flood
triggered by avalanches kill around 72 people in one time. The Geological, ecological, demographic
and hydro meteorological phenomena, such as rapid population growth and increasing population
density, High degree of environmental degradation particularly deforestation, Fragility of landmass,
Wider spread poverty, Topography which poses huge infrastructural challenge, Poor building
practices and no enforcement of building codes and unplanned city development, Insufficient
emergency preparedness and lack of awareness, and Political instability and various form of societal
misinterpretations are major contributor factors to disaster vulnerability in Nepal. Disaster risk andvulnerability has increased due to security issues and decreased livelihood opportunities, migration,
displacement, limited access to and weak flow of information to the population displaced internally
due to more than a decade-long conflict in the country as well.
Nepal has a long history of destructive earthquakes. Since 'Maps of the surface geology present avery complicated scenario for how the collision is being accommodated at present, at least in theterms of crustal deformation. The current locus of thrusting occurs mainly along the Main Boundary

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

27

Trust (MBT) at the southern foot of the Himalayas (Yu & Nutt, 1996) leaving Nepal at the ridge ofTibetian and Indial Plates colliding each-other along with the Himalayan Region, the country ishighly prone to earthquake. 'With a burgeoning population of almost a million people, uncontrolled
development, and building construction techniques that have changed little in the past century,
Kathmandu Valley becomes increasingly vulnerable to catastrophic earthquakes with each passing
year (ADPC, 2000). The biggest recorded disasters in Nepal are the earthquakes of 1934 and 1988
claiming ….people life. The earthquake of 1934 put the country's in economical and social shocks.
3.2

National disaster management context

Government of Nepal has promulgated various Laws and Policies, including Natural Calamity(Relief) Act, 1982 and National Strategy on Disaster Risk Management (NSDRM), 2009. The act has
provisioned a Committee being chaired by the Minister of Home Affairs at the central level,
Regional Natural Disaster Relief Committee at regional level and District Natural Disaster Relief
Committee at district level. Ministry of Home Affairs is working as a nodal agency of disaster risk
management, both at National and International level for Nepal. Along with the Act, Government
adopted National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (NSDRM), 2009 based on Hyogo
Framework for Action and this new strategy encompasses prevention, mitigation, preparedness,
response and recovery. This strategy has allocated the clear role of different Ministries for different
phases of disaster. Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation have become national
priority and being institutionalized to support sustainable development in Nepal through theharmonization and mainstreaming process. The current Thirteenth Five Year Plan (2013/14-2015/16)
has emphasized the disaster risk management issues as an inherited character of sustainable
development and has accorded priority to pre-disaster preparedness to recovery process.
Ministry of Home Affairs has established a National Emergency Operation Centre (NEOC) at
national level in 2010 and the ministry has established the emergency operation centers at 36 districts
up to-date with the planning to expand it in all districts within next three years. The Ministry ofHome Affairs with support from different development partners has prepared country level
Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment, targeting the better prepared, response and recovery activities withthe proper knowledge of possible hazardous situation at district and at local level. The different
hazards included the assessment are earthquake, flood, fire, drought, landslides and epidemic.
Government has already endorsed the Search and Rescue Strategic Action Plan and is in the processof approval to the Early Warning Strategic Action Plan.

A National Platform for DRR has beenformulated as a loose network, lead by Ministry of Home Affairs. The government has establisheddisaster risk management focal desk and appointed officials in different Ministries and Departments
to make effective the disaster risk reduction process both at national and local level. Some more
initiations are in place both from government and non-government level the expedite the process ofmanaging the disasters.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

28

In line with the progress, Nepal does not fall in the category of well-prepared nations for disaster risk
reduction. This is mainly because of not having a focal agency as a specific ministry and due toabsence of specific targeted law focusing on disaster risk reduction. The UNISDR report express inthat way 'of the 61 countries and areas in Asia and the Pacific, 30 have enacted national or central
legislation that specifically deals with disaster risk management. The documents cited do not include
policies or directives that are without overarching legislative mandate, such as regulations ordirectives issued by individual ministries (UNISDR, 2012).
3.3

Institutional arrangement for disaster management in some other countries

To manage the overall activities of the all cycle of disaster, it is necessary to have separate dedicatedgovernmental organization in place, mean the necessity of National Disaster Management Agency(NDMA) at National level. Some countries do have National Disaster Management Agency andsome countries have separate Ministry for disaster management. Like at south Asian region, if wecheck India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, they have NDMA; and Bangladeshi, Sri Lanka and Maldives
are having Separate Ministry of Disaster Management, but Bhutan and our country Nepal aremanaging disaster through Ministry of Home Affairs. It can be found three types of Governmental
Organization dealing with disaster management along with South Asian Region.
Japan is managing disasters with bit different ways of national institutional arrangement. Prime
Minister heads the Central Disaster Management Council, the council comprises different ministries
and secretaries with other related stakeholders as per necessity. They decide a designatedadministrative authority/organs and also a designated public corporation.

The role of the council is

to formulate and execute the disaster management plans, to coordinate with different governmental
and non-governmental organizations, to formulate and promote the execution of the basic disastermanagement plans and also to formulate and execute the disaster management operation plans. It
coordinate with specific Minister for disaster management, this minister is directly under Prime
Minister, as his subordinate. The Minister does not any specify ministry to administer, his role andfunction is to coordinate with all related government, semi-government and non-government
agencies. The Council is secretariat by Cabinet Office Disaster Management, thus the actual level
coordination lies with the Cabinet Office. The same goes true with Prefectural level with Governors,
as he leads the Prefectural Disaster Management Council. This is is the bit unique and bit different
system of Japan than other so many Asian countries.
The separate kind of arrangement in Japan has seen as a plus benefit for the overall management ofdisaster in Japan, expressing its efficiency in past various disasters. This can be envisaged throughthe role of preparedness and mitigation, along with the preparedness to response. It can be further
emphasized the role of institutions involved in disaster management at National level, can be

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

29complemented by the Institutionalism Theory at large. The institutions found country to country-wiseare different in category and in nature, some are purely governmental while some aresemi-government and non-government. These institutions are found complemented and supported bygovernment and non-government alliances and networks as well. It would be interesting andknowledgeable to academic, to practice-holders and to the general people at large to see the role andfunction of national institutions, making differences for the management of natural disaster,
especially the national institutions of Nepal and Japan, what are they in terms of type, nature andfunction. It would be more realistic and more knowledge, to provide the the depth-view for the
institutions evolved in disaster managements, if the institutions would be compared within south
Asian as well.
It is relevant to link the disaster management activity with the proper institutional arrangements atnational level. Currently, some countries are trying to get shift its priority from disaster response todisaster preparedness and some have got achievement too. As the UNISDR states 'Bangladesh, India,
Pakistan, the Philippines and Thailand have shown that well-targeted social protection measures are
not only affordable but that they also reduce vulnerability to a great extent. Innovative technologies
in information, communication and space-based applications have been put to good use by several
countries to fill critical gaps in the information supply chain (UNISDR, 2012). This progress has
clearly linked with the national institutional context. Since Bangladesh have a separate disastermanagement Ministry making proper focus on disaster mitigation. In the same time, India andPakistan got success through NDMA Structure. Anywhere in the UNISDR and other international
agency report, it is very difficult to see the name of Nepal and Bhutan, this is because of the DM
issue is been managing by their Home Ministry, getting more focus on traditional disaster response.
It has always been interesting and important to know the suitable type of the organization to havebetter and coherent disaster management both at center and local level. Also, some countries aremanaging overall disaster management activities through the regular and multi-tasked ministry oragencies. Some countries are having specific research agencies like Japan's Fire and Disaster
Management Agency, Asian Disaster Reduction Centre and so on. Some countries like Nepal lackthese types of specific governmental agency to manage the disaster. Up to now, the Ministry ofHome Affairs is managing the cycle of disaster management at national level, where as some otherline ministries is taking step in at the various activities of disaster management, both frompreparedness and response front. As the desired field for research or the research question was 'does
it makes any difference to have or not to have any designated specify agency like NDMA for theoverall activity management of disaster cycles', has guided the whole research activities.
3.4

Specific institutions for the coordination of disaster management at national level andtheir corresponding regulations

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

30

Different countries are having different type of Institutional Arrangement to manage disaster indifferent legal set up. Nepal and Japan along with other South Asian countries are also managing
disaster through different institutional setup. There are lot more agencies working for the
management of disaster management in the country and one specific agencies has designated to do
the overall management and coordination in the area of disaster management. Different countries
have different types of arrangement and the major arrangements and their major respective
regulations for the coordination of the disaster management at national level are as follows :Nepal

Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Home Affairs
Natural Calamity (Relief ) Act, 1982 (1st revision in 1989 and 2nd in 1992 Sep)

Japan

Cabinet Office Disaster Mgmt, (Designate one Minister for Disaster Mgmt)
Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act, 1961

Afghanistan Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority (ANDMA)
National Law on disaster response, management and preparedness in the Islamic
Sate of Afghanistan (updated on 2006 and 2011)
Bangladesh Disaster Mgmt and Relief Division, Ministry of Food and Disaster Mgmt
Disaster Management Act, 2012
BhutanDepartment of Disaster Management, Ministry of Home and Culture Affairs
Disaster Management Act of Bhutan, 2013

India

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)
Disaster Management Act, 2005

Maldives

National Disaster Mgmt Center, Ministry of Defense and National Security Services
Disaster Management Act, 2006

Pakistan

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)
National Disaster Management Act, 2010

Sril Lanka

National Disaster Mgmt Center, Ministry of Disaster Mgmt and Human Rights
Sri lank Disaster Management Act No. 3 of 2005

Some interesting and knowledgeable fact has come out from these countries to see the different
institutional arrangements and their major respective laws to deal with disaster with the roledifferences of the institutions and the overall process differences between these countries to havedisaster managed. while comparing the institutions and regulations in different countries, it has been
more focused on the legal and institutional arrangements of Japan and Nepal in preceding chapters.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

31

CHAPTER FOUR : DM INSTITUTIONS AND REGULATIONSInstitution and regulations for disaster management at national level in south Asian countries
4.1

Institution and regulation for the management of disaster at national level

In South Asian Region, three kind of arrangement for the coordination of overall disaster management
at national level has found. Afghanistan, India and Pakistan is dealing the overall national leveldisaster management coordination by its newly created National Disaster Management Authority.
Bangladesh, Maldives and Srilanka is managing the same level of national coordination through theseparate disaster management Ministry. In the SAARC Countries, Bhutan and Nepal is managing
overall disaster management coordination from its Ministry of Home Affairs. Although it posses thesimilar structure of National Disaster Management Council, it is headed by Home Minister, rather thePrime Minister in another countries. The Home Minister headed committee is the apex body foroverall disaster management coordination. The specific institutional mechanism and regulations are
given here as different subheadings.
4.2

Disaster management institution and regulation in Afghanistan

Afghanistan is recurrently hit by natural disasters causing losses to lives, livelihoods and property. In
recent decades, this has led to massive problems of food insecurity and population exodus from theworst hit areas. From 1954 to 2006, the country has experienced 118 large-scale disasters, with a total
number of persons killed estimated at 22,000 and the affected persons estimated around 11 million.
With almost three decades of conflict, the vulnerability of the people has been heightened. In the
recent past, the country experienced a series of disasters – the Baghlan Earthquake, the avalanches innorth Badakshan region, sandstorms in Farah, floods and landslides in central provinces and aprolonged drought. It has no doubt that Afghanistan is a disaster prone country.
'The original institutional framework for disaster risk management was put in place in the early 1980s.
At the core of this structure was the Department for Disaster Preparedness. This Department was aministerial level department and served the central disaster coordination agency and the secretariat of
the National Commission for Emergency Response Currently, the Afghanistan National Disaster
Management Agency is responsible for coordinating and managing all aspects of disaster preparedness
and response. The National Disaster Management Commission serves as the apex body within the
country’s DRM institutional framework. The role of the Commission is to formulate national policy on
disaster management, including periodic reviews (world bank, 2012). In light of the disaster, it has
formulated some of the institutions and regulation as bellow :Institutionsz

National Disaster Management Commission, as an
Apex body, chaired by the Second Vice President with

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

Regulationsz

National Law on disaster response, management andpreparedness in the Islamic Sate of Afghanistan

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

32

participation of relevant ministrieszAfghanistan National Disaster Management Authority(updated on 2006 and 2011)z

National Disaster Management Plan, 2010. The(ANDMA) established in 1971, as a secretariat of the

National Disaster Management Plan takes into

Commission

account

Province level Disaster Management Committees

availability, institutional capacities and constitutional/Commissions

authority in Afghanistan. In accordance, it provideszDistrict level Disaster Management Committee

procedures that may be implemented with immediatez

National Emergency Operations Centre

effect and subsequently upgraded as more resourcesz

Mobile Rapid Response Task Forcebecome available and capacities of stakeholders getzNational DRR Platform

built. Its immediate purpose is to bring about greaterz

Cluster Systemrole-clarity and coordination amongst national levelz

National Emergency Funddisaster response agencies. It covers the operationalzthecurrent

statusofinfrastructure

context, preparedness and response procedures, andan outline of future directions.
z

National

DisasterManagement

FrameworkofAfghanistanzNational Disaster Risk Reduction Planz

Disaster Risk Reduction initiatives and activities, inline with HFA prioritiesz

National Strategy for Disaster Managementz

National Disaster Management Planning 2003z

National Disaster Response & Recovery Planz

Emergency Declaration with level of EmergencieszNatural Disaster Mitigation Policy in Afghanistan

Regarding the Disaster Management in Afghanistan, the SDMC Background Paper states that 'Disaster
Management Framework of Afghanistan states to strengthen the capacity of government and civilsociety to manage disasters at both the national and sub-national levels, with immediate attention
being given to the highest priority needs of (a) effective disaster preparedness and response; and (b)the implementation of community-based disaster reduction projects for the most vulnerable
communities. The National Disaster Management Program, as envisaged in 2003, advocates acomprehensive risk management approach. Members of the National Emergency Commission
represent key sectors and have been active in dealing with a range of emergency responses, but therisk reduction thinking and capacity across government is still quite limited. Afghanistan National
Disaster Management Authority (ANDMA) has the lead role and is the apex agency for coordinating
disaster management activities. The primary function of ANDMA is coordination of disastermanagement activities at national level (SDMC, 2008).

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

33

The formation of NDMA in Afghanistan has no doubt important, then dealing disaster from any otherline ministry like Home Ministry. But still, the effectiveness of NDMA is always in questions. The
SDMC Journal states about the plan of Afghanistan in a way that 'unfortunately, Afghanistan’s
formulated plans for disaster preparedness are virtually existence on the paper: the emphasis is rather
on mitigation through structural measures or relief as and when the need arises. Plans, including
response through prior evacuation from threatened locations, timely and effective search and rescue,and long-term relief and rehabilitation are not practical (SDMC, 2010). This has emphasized if disaster
could have been managed by Prime-Minister Office or any specific disaster management ministry,then the plan does not have to synchronize in paper only.
Regarding the efficiency of ANDMA, the SDMC Journal has further emphasized that 'Based on thedraft national strategy regarding disaster preparedness and response, all the member ministries of the
National Commission for DM are expected to prepare DM and preparedness plans at sector level.
Some of the ministries have prepared their plans but they are not practical; the actual data is not yet
send to the central office. ANDMA suggested to president to have annual budget. In addition to theseare other stakeholders within the Government of Afghanistan. A number of international and nationalNGOs, civil society, academia CSOs, and UN Agencies are currently working in the sector. The
ANDMA was established in 1971 as a coordination office to support a multicultural national
commission supported by the United Nations Disaster Response Office (UNDRO). There are no
separate plans for different categories of disaster in Afghanistan.

The water strategic policy wasformulated in 2004 but due to problem of poor coordination, it is not approved yet; in the same state is
the national water plan made in 2005 but not approved. Drought policy and strategy that was made in2005 had been approved in 2008; the draft action plan for flood mitigation that was made in 2006 hasneither been updated nor approved (SDMC, 2010). This shows the poor efficiency of NDMA in
Afghanistan.
4.3

Disaster management institution and regulation in Bangladesh

Bangladesh is highly disaster prone country, especially Dhaka and Chittagong as a densely populatedarea with poor infrastructure. The SDMC Journal States that 'Natural disasters in a built environment
can cause huge casualties, and if the area is densely populated and poorly constructed, the disaster canreach devastating level. Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, acts as the focal point of all social,political, and economic activities of the country; it is facing a huge pressure of urbanization (SDMC,
2010). The vulnerability for Bangladesh has further exacerbated by its flood prone and drought as
well.
'Bangladesh’s DRM structure is organized on the national and sub-national-levels. On the highest level,
the National Disaster Management Council, headed by the Prime Minister, formulates and reviews
disaster management policies. The Inter-Ministerial Disaster Management Coordination Committee
was established to implement disaster management policies and decisions, assisted by the National

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

34Disaster Management Advisory Committee. The Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, which
has a central Disaster Management Bureau coordinates disaster preparedness and mitigationinterventions across all agencies. On the sub-national level committees coordinate and review
activities (world bank, 2012).
The National Disaster Management Policy, act and plan cover all possible kind of hazard for all overBangladesh. As very frequently experienced natural hazards, flood and cyclone got emphasis here. The
generalized description of all possible hazards is provided in the plan, and both policy and plancontain specific strategies/actions for each hazard. The act has fixed the name and responsibilities ofconcerned agencies/departments and the definitions of all terms related to disaster (SDMC, 2010).
Disaster Management Institutions and Regulations in Bangladesh can be listed in this way :Institutionsz

Regulations

Department of Disaster Management, headed byz

Disaster Management Act, 2012

Director General, set up in Nov 2012 with the mandatez

National Disaster Management Policy

to implement the objectives of Disaster Managementz

National Plan for Disaster Management 2010-015,

Act by reducing the overall vulnerability from different

along with Disaster Management Action Matrix

impacts of disaster by undertaking risk reduction

2010-2015

activities;

conducting

assistancez

Disaster Management Plan

programs efficiently to enhance the capacity of poorzStanding Orders in Disasterand disadvantaged as well as strengthening andz

Various Guidelines for Disaster Management

coordinating

variousz

Disaster Impact and Risk Assessment Guideline

government and non-government organizations relatedz

Local Disaster Risk Reduction Fund Management

programs

humanitarian

undertakenbyto disaster risk reduction and emergency response.

Guidelines

DDM is responsible to execute the directions,zEmergency Fund Management Guidelines

recommendations by the Government in connectionz

Indigenous Coping Mechanism Guidebook

with disaster management as well as the nationalzCommunity Risk Assessment Guidelines

disaster management principles and planningz

Damage and Needs Assessment MethodologyzMinistry of Disaster Management and ReliefzHazard Specific Risk Assessment Guidelinesz

The National Disaster Management Council (NDMC)z

Emergency Response and Information Management

headed by Prime Minister, and Inter-Ministerial
Disasterz

Management

Coordination

Guideline

CommitteezContingency Planning Template(IMDMCC) headed by the Minister of DM and Relief,zSectoral Disaster Risk Reduction Planning Template

has ensured the coordination of disaster relatedz

Local Level Planning Template

activities at the National levelz

National Risk Reduction Fund Management Guideline

National Disaster Management Advisory Committeez

National Disaster Reduction and Emergency Fund

(NDMAC) headed by an experienced person having
been nominated byz

Prime Minister.

Management Guidelinez

Local Disaster Management Fund Guideline

National Platform for Disaster Risk Reductionz

Guideline for Road and Water Safety(NPDRR) headed by Secretary of the MoDMRz

Guideline for Industrial Safety

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

35

z

z

Earthquake Preparedness and Awareness CommitteezGuideline for Disaster Shelter Management(EPAC) headed by Minister for MoDMRz

Monitoring and Evaluation Guideline for the

Cyclone Preparedness Program Implementation Board(CPPIB)

headedbytheSecretary,

DisasterManagement and Relief Division to review the

Implementation of the Planz

Guideline for International Assistance in Disaster
Emergency

preparedness activities in the face of initial stage of animpending cyclone.
z

CyclonePreparedness

Program(CPP)

PolicyCommittee headed by Minister of MoDRM
z

Focal Point Operation Coordination Group of Disaster
Management (FPOCG) headed by the Director Generalof DDM to review and coordinate the activities ofvariousdepartments/agencies

relatedtodisastermanagement and also to review the Contingency Plan
prepared by concerned departments.
z

NGO

Coordination

CommitteeonDisasterManagement (NGOCC) headed by the Director
General of DDM to review and coordinate theactivities of concerned NGOs in the country.
zCommittee for Speedy Dissemination of Disaster
Related Warning/ Signals (CSDDWS) headed by the
Director General of DDM to examine, ensure and findout the ways and means for the speedy disseminationof warning/ signals among the people.

'Bangladesh’s government has successfully utilized its increased revenues from 5.5 percent GDP growth per annum toinvest in risk resilient infrastructure. The Government of Bangladesh has invested more than US$10 billion during thepast 35 years to make Bangladesh less vulnerable to natural disasters. The country has come a long way in its efforts
and should continue to strengthen disaster planning in its long-term development goals and practices (world bank,2012). This specific effort seems getting progress because of the identity of separate ministry of disaster managementin Bangladesh.
Specific Ministry concentrates on their specific job and have less concern about the cross-cutting issue like disastermanagement. This has to perform by the specific agency, like Ministry of Disaster Relief in Bangladesh, but thisspecific ministry in some cases lacks the cohesive power to control the business of other ministry.

This issue can bevisualized with the start of provision mentioned by SDMC Journal as 'Lack of supervision and non-compliance ofbuilding code and safety laws have become a very common practice in the construction sector of Bangladesh.
Chittagong, which is regarded as the commercial capital of Bangladesh, is less developed compared to Dhaka though it
is rapidly developing and expanding due to current construction boom (SDMC, 2010)'. In this case, if Prime Minister

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

36

Office coordinates, then it has become much easier to force the particular line ministry to implement the building code.

4.4

Disaster management institution and regulation in Bhutan
Institutions

z

z

z

Regulations

Department of Disaster Management, Ministry ofz

Disaster Management Act of Bhutan, 2013

Home and Culture Affairs (MoHCA)z

National Disaster Risk Management Framework, 2007

Department of Local Governance, Ministry of Homez

National Recovery and Reconstruction Plan, 2010

and Culture AffairszEnvironment Assessment Act, 2002

The cabinet Office to assess the situation, summonzBhutan Water Policy, 2003

national resources, allocate money from Major Disasterz

Bhutan Building Rules, 2002

Fund and if required, decide to seek internationalzEnvironmental Management Framework For Bhutan,

assistance and decide on appropriate response measuresz

National

Committee

forDisasterManagement

2013z(NCDM), chaired by Ministers in a rotation-basis and
HCA Minister as a voice-chair to oversee/supervise theNon-Engineered Buildings, 2010z

effectiveness of response mechanisms, give directions
to line Ministries/agencies, decide on the quantum ofzNational Action Plan for School Earthquake Safety,
2013zrelief assistance, mobilization of resources, providezGuideline on Proper Construction Practices for

National Action Plan for Earthquake Safety of HealthFacilities, 2013

regular inputs to the Cabinet and directions tozMaterials for Annual School Preparedness Drill, 2010

Dzongkhags, Dungkhags, Thromdes and Geogs etc

z

September

21,

2009

Earthquake

Joint

Rapid

Inter-Ministerial Task Force, chaired by Minister from

Assessment for Recovery, Reconstruction and Risk

MoHCA

Reduction, 2009

Technical-advvisor Committee, directly reporting tozInitial Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Jigme

Inter-ministerial Task Force

Dorji

Wangchuck

Nationalz

Dzongkhag DM Committee (DDMC)

Thimphu, Bhutan, 2012z

National Emergency Operation Centersz

His Majesty's Relief Fund to strengthen response

ReferralHospital:capabilities at various administrative levels eg. Roads,
Police, Communication and to address speedy relief,
recovery, rehabilitation & reconstruction, administeredby MoHCAz

National Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness Fund, tofinancehazard-specificrisk

mitigation

projects/schemes formulated at national level bydifferent sectors/Ministries and to finance similar
projects developed by Dzongkhags, Geogs andMunicipalities, administered by NCDM

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

37

The SDMC Background Paper has further emphasize the disaster management system of Bhutan bysaying 'Bhutan, a tiny Himalayan land locked state with population of over 600,000 (approx.) isthreatened by GLOF, flash flood, landslides, forest fires and earthquakes disasters. acknowledging the
emerging disaster threats, Government of Bhutan had asked Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs(MoHCA) to come up with a comprehensive National Framework for disaster risk management in the
country. With assistance from UNDP Office in Bhutan and regional experts, MoCHA have drafted a
National Framework for disaster risk management (SDMC, 2008). Since the Ministry of Home andCulture is coordinating disaster management activities, may be it can visualize bit limited progress ondesigning the overall framework in Bhutan, rather it has more focus in response management.
Bhutan has specific line agency polices like National Recovery and Reconstruction Plan, 2010,
Environment Assessment Act, 2002, Bhutan Water Policy, 2003, Bhutan Building Rules, 2002,
Environmental Management Framework For Bhutan, 2013, Guideline on Proper Construction
Practices for Non-Engineered Buildings, 2010, National Action Plan for School Earthquake Safety,
2013, National Action Plan for Earthquake Safety of Health Facilities, 2013, Materials for Annual
School Preparedness Drill, 2010, September 21, 2009 Earthquake Joint Rapid Assessment for
Recovery, Reconstruction and Risk Reduction, 2009 and Initial Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of
Jigme Dorji Wangchuck National Referral Hospital: Thimphu, Bhutan, 2012, clearly specifying theprobrem of proper coordination from the Ministry of Home Affairs, since other line ministry presume
their duties well in their specific area.
eg]/ hlt eg]klg
4.5

Disaster management institution and regulation in India'Large-scale disasters, especially during the last decade, have contributed to the development of aproactive approach to disaster risk management in India. The Gujarat earthquake in 2001 and the 2004
Asian Tsunami have served as platforms to move from a reactive emergency response to a pro-active
risk reduction approach (world bank, 2012). The 1999 super cyclone in Orissa, 2001 Bhuj earthquake
in Gujarat, 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, 2009 big flood in Bihar are the triggering factors in India tohave disaster better managed with more focus on preparedness. Indian disaster management has been
dealt by Home Ministry before, being as a response focus.

The shift in the priority from response topreparedness leads the establishment of the separate agency for overall disaster management. The
institutional framework and its regulation mechanism is given categorically here. Disaster
Management Institutions and Regulations in India can be listed in this way :Institutionsz

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA),

Regulationsz

Disaster Management Act, 2005, that lays down

under the chairmanship of Prime Minister, as an

institutional,

apex body for Disaster Management in India set up

mechanisms at the national, state, district and local

after the Indian Ocean Tsunami, as a part of thelevelsGovernment of India’s decision to put in place

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepalzlegal,

financialandcoordination

National Disaster Management Policy

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

38

necessary institutional mechanisms for drawing upz

National Disaster Response Planand monitoring the implementation of disasterz

The National Disaster Response Fund will be appliedmanagementzplans,

ensuring

measuresforby the National Executive Committee (NEC) towards

prevention and mitigation of disasters and formeeting the expenses for emergency response, relief

undertaking a holistic, coordinated and prompt

and rehabilitation, in accordance with the guidelines

response to any disaster situation.

laid down by the Central Government in consultation

National Executive Committee (NEC) comprises thewith the NDMA

Union Home Secretary as the ChairpersonzzzNational Disaster Management Fund is administeredcreated for projects exclusively for the purpose of

by NDMA

mitigation, as mandated by Act

National Disaster Response Fund is administered byz

NDMA, through the National Executive CommitteezDifferent Ministry and Agencies are doing DM

NDMA may lay down plans and policies on disastermanagement;

approvethe

National

Hazard zoning, mapping and vulnerability analysis ina multi-hazard frameworkz

Related activities, the NDMA is coordinatingz

National Disaster Mitigation Fund (NDMF) may be

Remote sensing and applications of Global Positioning
Systems (GPS)zDisaster

Environmentally

Sustainable

Development

andClimate Change Adaptation

Management Plan; approve plans prepared by thez

Forecasting and Early Warning Systems

Ministries and Departments of the Government, layzEfficacy of plans and Standard Operating Procedures

down guidelines to be followed by a State Authority(SOPs)

in drawing up the State Plan; lay down guidelines tozCommunity Based Disaster Preparedness

be followed by different Ministries and DepartmentszCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Public

for the purpose of integrating the measures forprevention of disaster or the mitigation of its effects

Private Partnership (PPP)zin their development plans and projects; coordinate

Revision of Municipal Regulations and Land-use
Planning

the enforcement and implementation of the policieszIncidence/Response Command Systemand plans for disaster management; arrange for, andz

A National Contingency Action Plan (CAP) foroversee, the provision of funds for mitigation

dealing with contingencies arising in the wake ofmeasures, preparedness and response; provide suchnaturalsupport to other countries affected by a major

Government of India and it had been periodicallydisaster; lay down guidelines for the minimum

updated.

standards of relief to be provided to persons affectedzby disaster; give directions regarding relief in loan
repayment or for grant of fresh loans on suchdisasters has been formulated by

the

A Calamity Relief Fund (CRF) has been set up incenter level and in each State levelz

concessional terms as may be appropriate in the

National Calamity Contingency Fund (NCCF) - a fundcreated at the Central Government leveljudgment of the Authority; take such other measuresz

National Disaster Mitigation Fund (NDMF) is in place

for the prevention of disaster, of the mitigation of itsz

PM National Disaster Relief Fundeffects, or for preparedness and capacity building forz

National Disaster Management Policy and National

dealing with the threatening disaster situation or

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

Disaster Response Plan

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

39

disaster as it may consider necessaryz

NDMA also coordinate with National Disaster
Response Force and also with State Disaster
Response Forcez

National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM)
as a research institution for capacity development as
one of its major responsibilities, along with training,
research, documentation and development of anational level information basez

National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) as a
specialized consolidated force to tackle the disastersituation or disasters/emergencies both natural andman-made. The general superintendence, direction
and control of this force shall be vested in andexercised by the NDMA and the command andsupervision of the Force shall vest in an officer to beappointed by the Central Government as the Director
General of Civil Defense and National Disaster
Response Force, as provisioned by the Act. This has
subsequently extended to State Level, named as
SDRF

z

Cabinet Committee on Management of NaturalCalamities (CCMNC)z

High-level Committee (HLC) and Inter-MinisterialGroup (IMG), in the case of calamities of severe
nature, based on the situation, deployed/targetted as
per the necessityzNational Crisis Management Committee (NCMC),
comprising high level officials of the GoI headed by
the Cabinet Secretary, will continue to deal withmajor crises which have serious or nationalramifications.

zDisaster Management Authority at State and Districtlevel under the chairmanship of Chief Minister andCollector respectivelyz

The Orissa State Disaster Mitigation Authority(OSDMA) was set up in Orissa after the 1999 Orissa
Super cyclone. The major focus of OSDMA's

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

40

activities is preparedness and response planning forvarious disasters. These include :zDisaster Management Framework for the Statez

Disaster Management Policy for the Statez

Draft Disaster Management Plan focusing on Water
and Climate-Related Hazards, Geological Hazards,
Chemical /Industrial /Nuclear Disasters, Accident
Related Disasters and Biological Disastersz

Draft Disaster Management Bill at State levelz

Community Based Disaster Preparedness Programz

The Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority(GSDMA) was set up in Gujarat after the 2001 Bhuj
Earthquakez

National, State, Metro and District level Emergency
Operation Centers'The DM Act 2005 envisaged a paradigm shift in the GoI's focus from its hitherto post-disaster rescue,relief and rehabilitation-centric approach to a more proactive pre-disaster preparedness, mitigation andimproved response capacities approach. This paradigm shift is also influenced by global best practices
which have established that strengthening preparedness and mitigation strategies would considerably
reduce the vulnerability of disaster-prone communities and thereby reduce the risks associated(NDMA, 2010).
Stating the importance of the proper disaster management act and proper disaster management
authority, the SDMC Background Paper has realized that the progress in India as 'the Act has provided
for constitution of dedicated funds at national, provincial and local levels for disaster risk mitigation.
The National Disaster Management Authority has issued comprehensive guidelines for holistic
management of specific types of disasters. Every Ministry is expected to develop its disastermanagement plan which would include measures for prevention, mitigation and preparedness (SDMC,
2008).
Regarding the efficiency of the NDMA in India, the IDR 2012 has not claimed the structure of NDMA
is appropriate for the overall coordination of the disaster management, rather it has claimed for it
success of collecting data and publishing documents. 'It becomes imperative to compile a database anddocument past disasters so that the above mentioned functions entrusted to the Institute can be carriedout effectively. Documenting a disaster also helps in reviewing and analyzing the challenges faced by
the country and the emerging trends it observed during the past while dealing with disasters. The
reflection of the past disasters would help in illustrating vital lessons to be learnt so that the future

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

41

disasters can be handled cautiously and confidently (NIDM, 2013).
The IDR 2012 report further emphasize 'we are still relying on a response driven approach to thisdisaster in spite of the fact that early warning can be generated before the disaster strikes. It implies
that there are some major gaps in the generation of warning and its effective dissemination to thecommunity. The government needs to strengthen this mechanism of early warning dissemination(NIDM, 2013). This also shows that there is much room for improvement the role of NDMA for overall coordination.
National Guideline for Tsunami Management emphasize some of the gaps as ' one of the major gaps in
the Tsunami risk management was the lack of awareness on the Tsunami risk and vulnerability in India,
and hence the lack of preparedness as reflected in the absence of a Tsunami Early Warning System(TEWS) in India. The critical gaps that now remain are the lack of public awareness on Tsunami risk
and vulnerability in the coastal areas, the weak enforcement and compliance of town planning byelaws,
development control regulations and building codes in the coastal areas, and the challenges in
implementation of appropriate technologies to disseminate and communicate the early warning to thecoastal inhabitants located in the near vicinity of a near source Tsunami (NDMA, 2010). As we it canbe seen that the NDMA can point out the problem by publishing reports and books, but thecoordination to the real work, done by different agencies, the NDMA does not claim to be done by it.
This also somehow leads the thought what would have be better if this coordination has been done by
Inida's Prime-Minister Office.
4.6

Disaster management institution and regulation in Maldives'A presidential decree established the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC) soon after the
December 2004 Tsunami. It was created haphazardly and its mandate was to coordinate the recovery
process for the Tsunami relief effort. However, as things progressed, the government handed the
mandate of disaster preparedness and risk reduction as well to NDMC (UNDP, 2009). 'Prior to thisevent, few major disasters impacted Maldives and DRM structures were therefore absent. In the wakeof the Tsunami, the National Disaster Management Center, under the Ministry of Defense and National
Security, was created. A permanent institution since then, the center is responsible for coordinating
disaster management activities, providing relief assistance and temporary shelters, and coordinatingreconstruction (world bank, 2012). Disaster Management Institutions and Regulations in Maldives canbe listed in this way :Institutionsz

National Disaster Management Center (NDMC), Ministry

Regulationsz

Disaster Management Act, 2006, an act to provide forof Defense and National Security Services, MoDNSS

the creation of a national disaster management council,zNational Disaster Management Council

a national disaster management authority and otherz

National Security Service (NSS) Maldivesmatters related and incident

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

42z

National Geophysical Data Center Maldivesz

Climate Risk Profile of Maldives 2006z

The National Disaster Relief Coordination Unit (NDRCU)z

Developing a Disaster Risk Profile for Maldives, 2005z

National Economic Recovery and Reconstruction Programz

Strategic National Action Plan for Disaster Risk¾

National Economic Recovery Unit (NERU)¾

Housing and Infrastructure Redevelopment Unit (HIRU)z

The Maldives One year after the Tsunami, 2005¾

Transport and Logistics Unit (TLU)z

Tsunami Impact and Recovery, 2006z

Maldives National Defense Forcez

Terminology in Disaster Risk Reduction, 2006z

National Reconstruction and Recovery Plan 2006z

Tsunami Recovery Trust Fund 2006z

National Development Plans at the Ministry of

Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation 2010-2020

Planning and National Developmentz

ClimateChangeVulnerability

andAdaptationassessment of Maldivesz

Safer Islands Strategy in Maldivesz

Emergency preparedness and response in tourists
resorts

The work done by the concern Disaster Management Ministry has praised by SDMC by saying'Maldives has developed the Safe Islands Program, focusing on the development of the larger islands
with better economic opportunities, high environmental resilience, and incentives for voluntary
migration to these islands. To mitigate future risk from disasters, land use plans of the safer islands
have been developed incorporating features of high resilience: with a wider environmental protection
zone, elevated areas for vertical evacuation in case of floods, establishment of alternative modes ofcommunication and energy and detailed disaster management plans. Currently five islands have been
identified for the program and development plans prepared in consultation with people (SDMC, 2008).
After getting examined the Maldives DM System, the report has suggested 'to Develop guidelines forsettlement planning (inclusive of disaster risk reduction principles), which are integrated intodevelopment processes. Guidelines will be required for, inter alia, building codes, land reclamation,
harbor development, and land use, to ensure that any development is sustainable and resilient toclimate change, reducing rather than increasing risk. The EIA process needs to be more systematic,with clear guidelines for implementation of EIAs, and the process should be transparent and monitored
to ensure that recommendations are incorporated into any projects. Introduce a more holistic approach
to risk mitigation, which puts much greater weight on societal and economic adaptation rather than thecurrent focus on physical mitigation (UNDP, 2009). The question again comes with the Maldives DM
System, for this recommendation, does the one ministry designated for DM can presume therecommended work.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

43

4.7

Disaster management institution and regulation in Pakistan

In Pakistan, 'both the 2005 earthquake and the 2010 and 2011 floods have revealed the vulnerability ofPakistani society and economy to disasters. Damages and losses have been massive but could havebeen largely reduced if disaster risk reduction measures had been incorporated into physical, socialand economic development. The 2005 earthquake illustrated the fact that disasters are not natural; they
are closely related to human knowledge, skills and action or inaction. The 2005 earthquake provided awake-up call to move away from an emergency response paradigm, and to devote more attention toprevention, mitigation and preparedness (NDMA, 2013).
The earthquake of 2005 brought many valuable lessons for national policy makers, local government
practitioners as well as the communities to rethink and reassess their capacities and weaknesses when
dealing with disasters. Government of Pakistan introduced legal, institutional and administrative
arrangements for disaster risk reduction and management at national, provincial and local levels,
whereas, NGOs and INGOs brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to cope with ensuing
hazards and vulnerabilities (GIZ, 2013). Legal and institutional arrangements were made forcomprehensive disaster risk reduction and management. In order to address the shortcomings and to becompliant with the International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (ISDR) 1999 and Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005-2015, National Disaster Risk Management Framework was developed.
On the lapse of 2006 Ordinance, the Parliament enacted National Disaster Management Act in 2010.
Comprehensive legal and institutional arrangements were made to deal with the compelling disasters
in the country. National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) was established as a national entitywith provincial and district structures (GIZ, 2013). The institutions and regulations in Pakistan is given
below as:Institutionszz

Regulations

2005 Flood, 2010 & 2011 Flood is the triggering factorszNational Disaster Management Act, 2010

for the better management of disaster in PakistanzNational Disaster Risk Reduction Policy, 2013

National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), asz

National Disaster Management Plan

an independent, autonomous, and constitutionally bodyz

Monsoon Contingency Plan 2014/09/19

established disaster preparedness federal institutionz

National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management

mandate and responsible to deal with whole spectrum ofzNational Disaster Risk Management Frameworkdisaster management and preparedness in the countryz

National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC),
under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister, as the(NDRMF) (2007-2012)z

Cluster System is in place with emergency
contingency plan at all clusters

apex policy making body in the field of Disasterz

National Disaster Management Commission (NDMC),
chaired by the Prime Ministerz

Provincial

DisasterManagement

Commissions(PDMCs)Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

44zDisaster Response Force, 1122 Forcez

National Emergency Operation Centers

The overall disaster management function has been taking lead by the National Disaster Management
Authority (NDMA) in Pakistan since its establishment in 2007, as it is an independent, autonomous,and constitutionally body, established for disaster preparedness with federal institution mandate andresponsible to deal with whole spectrum of disaster management and preparedness in the country. In
Pakistan, the establishment of NDMA has taken as an achievement, but not fully satisfy with its work,as the Message from the Prime Minister of Pakistan On the occasion of National Disaster AwarenessDay, 8 Oct 2014 states 'due to improved mechanisms and responsive disaster management institutions,
we are able to contain some of losses, but, we need to further ensure better preparedness and takepreventive measures to mitigate the negative impact of disasters (Message, 2014).
Pakistan has enacted the DM Policy by stating 'build up its resilience to shocks from natural andman-made hazards with a sense of urgency, creating a solid base to address disaster risk reduction invulnerable areas, while involving an increasingly wider range of stakeholders from government, civilsociety and private sector with the identified challenges for the DRR Pakistan is 'Low levels of risk
awareness and knowledge, Development not “risk conscious” and DRR not yet effectively integrated
and Insufficient DRR capacity at all levels of society (NDMA, 2013).
4.8

Disaster management institution and regulation in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is prone to natural disasters commonly caused by floods, cyclones, landslides, droughts andcoastal erosion for generations with increasing losses to life and property in the past few decades. 'Thedevastation caused by Tsunami in 2004, however, took Sri Lanka by surprise warning that Sri Lanka isalso vulnerable to low-frequency high impact events with extensive damage. Although several
initiatives were taken by the governments in the past to mitigate these damages they were mostly
reactive emphasizing relief and recovery rather than proactive with damage prevention orminimization strategies (Jayawardan, 2007). Sri Lanka has been experiencing natural disasters mainly
caused by floods, cyclones and landslides until the devastating 2004 Tsunami making it the worst
disaster ever experienced in Sri Lanka. Although the need for a long term disaster risk management
plan was identified after each disaster, the idea soon died with the recovery from such localized
disasters (Jayawardan, 2007). The Institutions and Regulations used for the management of disaster in
Sri Lanka can be listed in this way :Institutions

Regulationsz

Ministry of Disaster Management, MoDMz

National

DisasterManagement

Center(NDMC,z

Sri lank Disaster Management Act No. 3 of 2005z

National Disaster Management Plan, 2010 (revision

established 1996), headed by Director General, under
the Ministry of Disaster Management

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

on 2014)zComprehensive Disaster Management Plan for SriADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

45z

National Disaster Relief Services Center (NDRSC),
headed by Director General, under the Ministry of

Lanka, 2013-017
zDisaster Managementzzz

A Road Map for Disaster Management : Towards a
Safer Sri Lanka, 2006-2016

National Council for Disaster Management (NCDM),z

National Policy on Disaster Management, 2013

Chaired by Prime Ministerz

The legal basis for the Policy, and all other core

District Disaster Management Units in 25 Districts,

elements of Sri Lanka’s disaster management

headed by Assistant Directors

regime, is the Act. These include: the National

National

DisasterManagement

Coordination

Disaster Management Plan (NDMP); National

Committee, chaired by Secretary of DM and HR

Emergency Operations Plan; Disaster Managementz

National Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction

Plans for every Ministry, Government Departmentz

SAHANA Disaster Management System, for theand public corporation; and other plans, programs

collection, processing and dissemination of the disasterand guidelines. Laws, policies and undertakings ondataother topics, such as land use planning and localzComprehensive

DisasterManagement

Programgovernment, also contribute directly and indirectly

2013-017
z

Parliament Select Committee on Natural Disasterto disaster management outcomes in Sri Lankaz

Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Housing
Sector, 2009z

Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Response
Plan up to district levelz

Early Warning Plans and Mitigation Plansz

Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Plan,z

National Disaster Relief Services Center (NDRSC)
Circulars 2010, and Guidelines, 2013

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

46

CHAPTER FIVE : DISASTER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF NEPAL
Disaster occurrence and current disaster management institution and regulation in Nepal
5.1

Major earthquake incident in Nepal from history'The historical seismicity of earthquakes preserved in different form such as written history, chronicles,
inscription etc which plays an important role in the seismic hazard assessment because instrumentally
recorded earthquakes are lacking before the current century. Historical events must be available for along period of human civilization which should throw light on the extent of damage besides the dateand place of occurrence. The great earthquake of June 7, 1255, damaged palaces, temples, and housesin the Kathmandu Valley and killed one-third of its population. The reigning monarch, Abhaya Malla,
died six days after the earthquake as a result of injuries sustained during the event. The earthquake ofAugust 26, 1833, destroyed 4,040 buildings, killed 414 persons, and injured many in the vicinity ofKathmandu where there were hundreds of additional fatalities and it also destroyed houses in theeastern villages. The fort at Chisapani in the Mahabharat range south of Kathmandu was damaged andlandslides blocked the passes to Tibet. The Kamala River was dammed by a landslide which burst out
four days after the event flooding the village of Baldeah, north of Darbhanga in the (ICIMOD, 2007).
In 1934 AD, an earthquake, known as Great Nepal Bihar Earthquake and popularly known as 9o's
earthquake hit Nepal with the magnitude of 8.4 on the Richter scale. Casualty figures were highest for
any recorded earthquake in the history of Nepal. In total 8519 people lost their lives in Nepal, a totalof 126355 houses were severely damaged and around 80893 buildings were completely destroyed.
Total money spent from the earthquake relief fund was NRs 206500 inside Kathmandu valley only.
Earthquake relief fund was established by the king, loans were provided for earthquake effected
people and earthquake volunteers groups were formed. After this event in 1999 AD, Udayapur
Earthquake has affected the east part of Nepal and some parts of Central Development region leaving
721 deaths, 6553 people injured, 64174 private buildings, 468 public houses, 790 governmentbuildings damaged, 1566 live stocks. Nepal is prone to earthquake, as the two plates colliding
eachother passing from the Nepal, always threatening for next big earthquake. (this earthquake
information

has

taken

from

http://nset.org.np/nset2012/index.php/menus/subsubmenudetail/submenuid-137/subsubmenuid-48/menuid-58, last visited date Oct 7, 014 and authenticity lies with theorganization).
5.2

Flood, landslide and fire as a regular occurrence disasters

The movement of earth, rock or debris down slope under the influence of gravity by certain processes
is considered as a landslide, as it usually occurs as secondary effects of heavy rainfall and earthquakes.
In so many cases, the landslide has occurred in Nepal even if there is small amount of continuous
rainfall for weeks, triggered by the higher level of sun shining after rain. A debris flow is slurry ofsoils, rocks and organic matter combined with air and water. The causes of landslide in Nepal are

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

47

natural as well as manmade. In general the middle hills are prone to landslides. The natural
phenomena like heavy rainfall, active geotectonic movements, deforestation and disturbance of hillslopes are also the major causes for occurring landslides. 'Even in Aug 5, 2014, the mass landslide
occurs in the Sindupalchok District, claiming Sunkoshi River Blocked and taking life of 156 people,
making it the deadliest to hit the Himalayan nation in three decades. The landslide has also created adangerous blockage of the Sunkoshi River, stoking fears of floods downstream in neighboring India's
Bihar state, where the river is known as Kosi. The landslide also damaged part of the Arniko Highway
linking Kathmandu with the Tibetan capital Lhasa, stranding more than 500 foreign hikers and their
guides (NEOC Data). These type of phenomenon is common in Nepal, seeking special attraction fromstakeholders.
The topographical feature of Nepal is has the prime responsible factor for floods in Nepali rivers.
Flood is caused by heavy precipitation which may occur at any place except high Himalayan region
during the monsoon season. Inundation along the river banks and erosion of land along the riverbanks
causes loss by damaging irrigation and communications facilities and fertile lands across or adjacent to
the riverbanks. Such phenomenon’s have caused loss of lives and property in mountainous areas of
Nepal and have posed severe hazards to physical infrastructure like roads and bridges. Inundations
have disrupted social and economic development of many parts of terrain region in the country. 'The
floods of August 2008 in Koshi river, September 2008 in Western Nepal and July and August 1993 in
the Bagmati and other rivers were the most devastating floods in Nepal. Nepal has observed Monsoon
flood as well as Flash flood. Rainfall variability (unequal rainfall in time and space), topography(steep Mountain and flat Tarai), Deforestation (decreasing vegetative cover) are the major factors
contributing to the floods in Nepal. The 1978 flood in the Tinao Basin, the 1980 flood along the Koshi
River, the 1985 cloudburst and outburst of the debris dam in the Tadi River Basin, the 1987 flood in
the Sunkoshi Basin resulting in the submergence of the central and eastern Terai by up to one meter,
and the 1989 cloudburst affecting the Central region - some areas of Chitwan and the Western region the inner Terai, and Butwal and the Parasi areas are among the major floods recorded in Nepal. The
devastating flood that occurred from July 18-20, 1993, in the Central Region surpassed all the floods
mentioned above in terms of its ferocity and the damage it caused to the national economy. It caused
heavy destruction of life and property, made thousands of people homeless, and destroyed standing
crops spread over thousands of hectares of lands. Forty-four districts were affected. Some 1,336
people lost their lives in that disaster. About half a million people from 73,000 households wereaffected (ICIMOD, 2007).
Fire is a recurring disaster in Nepal. During the dry season from February to May, large numbers ofincident of fire are reported, mostly in the Terai where about three quarter of houses are built withthatched roofs. Forest fires occur throughout Nepal and result deforestation of around 1.7 per cent
(Dhital, 2009) of the total forest area annually. These fires cause economic losses and environmental

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

48

degradation throwing dedicates ecosystems out of balance. It is also threatening valuable andendangered flora and fauna, degrading the soil and inducing flood and landslide. Most of the fireincidents are caused by negligence of the people. Hunting practices, negligence by cigarette smoker,
intentional fire to accelerate growth of grasses to feed livestock, intentional fire setting by herb andcharcoal collectors and children playing with fires are some of the reasons for forest fires. Certain typeof trees especially Sal (shores Robusta) is particularly susceptible to fire. About 86 per cent of the
population of the country inhabit in the rural areas mainly in thatched houses closely clustered where
fire hazards are likely to be common.
5.3

Multi-hazard threats in Nepal

Glacial lakes are like natural water reservoirs dammed by ice or moraines. Lake outburst can betriggered by several factors: ice or rock avalanches, the collapse of the moraine dam due to the meltingof ice buried within, the washing out of fine material by springs flowing through the (piping)earthquakes or sudden inputs of water into the lake e.g. through heavy rains or drainage from lakes
further up glacier. ICIMODs 2001 inventory of glaciers, glacial lakes and GLOFs counted 3252
glaciers and 2323 glaciers lakes in Nepal 20 of which are very vulnerable to flooding (MOHA, 2009).
'GLOF affects high Himalayan region as well as downstream by extremely damages of lives andproperties. Major events shown in past were Tamor Koshi (1980), Sun Kosi (1935, 1981), Dudh Kosi
(1977, 1985), Arun (1968, 1969, 1970) etc (ICIMOD, 2007).
In Nepal, most of the country is in the grip of drought-like condition from the end of March till the
monsoon arrives next in June, but the districts like Manang and Mustang in the Trans-Himalayan
region are extremely dry throughout the year and the Terai and western hills are more frequently
affected than other regions. Drought results in crop failures and famine, both during the monsoon
season and rest of the year, when winter crops are sown. About 5,000 families living in pockets in thehills and Terai are badly affected by drought each year (MOHA, 2009). Planned land use with crop
rotation, rain water harvesting, drought monitoring, using recycle water, developing irrigation system,
water rationing are some of the strategy which help to minimize impact of drought.
'Although about 300 people has died in June and July month of 2009 in Midwestern part of the country,
this year there is no severe case of diarrhea, but it is likely to robust again in anytime in the monsoon
season, as the country is always in the threat of the epidemic of diarrhea. Some other kind of disasters
are drought, hailstone, thunderbolt, avalanche, boat capsize, structure collapse, cold wave, hot wave,
swine flu, bird flu, encephalitis, meningitis is common during hot and rainy season. The lightening,hailstorm are other natural disaster. The data at 2012 has shown the different figure that there areabout 200 people has been killed by the lightening only, the trend is increasing as well (MOHA, 2012).
The sudden avalanche and heavy snow fall in winter season sometimes cause heavy loss of human
lives and properties. Road accident and Aircraft accidents are also major source of disaster in Nepal.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

49

In Nepal, road accidents are one of the top ten causes of death. Aircraft accidents are more common in
hilly terrain and areas with extreme climatic condition. But the road accident and aircraft accident has
been dealt by other government agencies, treating them as a accident, not the disaster one.
A scenario of past disastrous events during 1980-2012 reveals that epidemics, landslide and floods
takes the largest toll of life every year, and urban or rural fire are the principle hazards in terms of theirextent and frequency of occurrence as well as the spread and intensity of physical and socio-economic
impacts. Earthquake is a major potential hazard to reckon with – the country is located on an active
seismic belt and the exponential urbanization trend over the past decade with general disregard ofearthquake-resistant measures in building construction is the cause of ever-increasing earthquake risk.
(All data are from MOHA/NEOC Data Bank)
5.4

Legal and institutional framework of Nepal for disaster management

Disaster management system in Nepal is still response and relief focus. Ministry of Home Affairs iscoordinating the overall disaster management activities, although different ministries is presuming
their duties of disaster preparedness. In the absence of specific agency, it has become increasingly
more challenging for the proper management of disaster. As the ICIMOD report cited in a way'efficient implementation of preparedness activities has often been hampered by lack of coordination
between and within government and non-government organizations. The concentration of disaster
preparedness has, in general, been on response and recovery and assistance to communities struck by
disasters on an ad hoc basis and, in many cases, to an insufficient degree. Lack of coordination has, incases, led to duplication of work by different organizations. The priority is still mainly on post-disaster
activities, i.e., rescue and relief work, and this is a common mindset of people and organizations
working in this field. Because of this mindset, preparedness activities have not received sufficient
priority in disaster management activities (ICIMOD, 2007) in Nepal.
Natural Calamity Relief Act (NCRA), 1982 is a milestone legal instrument for disaster management in
Nepal. The Act has envisaged the Natural Disaster as earthquake, fire, storm, flood, landslide, heavy
rain, drought, famine, epidemic, and other similar natural disaster. The Act also includes industrial
accident or accidents caused by the explosions or any other kinds of disaster. Similarly, the Act
defines Natural disaster relief work as “any relief work carried out in the area affected or likely to beaffected by the natural disaster in order to removed the grief and inconvenience caused to the people,
to rehabilitate the victims of the natural disaster, to protect the public property and life, to control andminimize the natural disaster and to make advance preparation thereof”. According to the Act, theprovision has been made to set up different institutions from centre to local level to arrange relief andrescue works during the emergency.
There has been a provision of Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee (CNDRC) with Relief andResearcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

50Treatment Sub-committee and Supply, Shelter and Rehabilitation Sub- committee at the centre level as
an apex body of disaster management in Nepal. The CNDRC, chaired by the Home Minister is
responsible for preparing national policies on preparedness, response and recovery and ensuring theirimplementation, stockpiling relief and rescue materials, collecting and disseminating relief materials
and fund during emergency, give direction to the district and local committees for the execution ofrelief work. To support the functioning of CNDRC, there is Sub-committees of Relief and Treatment,
and Supply, Shelter and Rehabilitation, headed by relevant Ministers. Regional Disaster Relief
Committee (RDRC) is present in all five regions of Nepal and is chaired by the Regional
Administrator. It comprises related government agencies and security agencies (law and order,
emergency response and development institutions) along with voluntary organizations such as Red
Cross. It is responsible for supporting and monitoring the activities implemented by DDRCs andformulates regional and district level disaster management plan. All 75 districts of Nepal have aDistrict Disaster Relief Committee (DDRC). The chairperson is the Chief District Officer (CDO), whois the highest-level government official to take disaster-related decisions. It comprises various line
agencies such as law and order, emergency response (police and armed police), district chapter of
NRCS and critical facilities such as irrigation, road, livestock, health etc. The role of DDRC is tocoordinate the local committees, formulate district disaster management plan, coordinate and operaterelief work during emergencies and provide information to RDRC and CNDRC. The Local Disaster
Relief Committee (LDRC) is responsible for disaster management at the local level, such as
disbursement of funds during emergencies, and rescue and transport of the injured to hospitals.
The Local Self Governance Act (LSGA), 1999 empowers local bodies to govern themselves andrecognizes that local people and local bodies are the most appropriate points of entry to meetdevelopment needs at the local level. The act has authorized to undertake certain functions withrespect to DRR by local bodies. Some provisions have been made to establish Environment Protection
Fund and Disaster Management Fund at DDCs, VDCs and Municipalities. Control of naturalcalamities, prevention of infectious disease and epidemics, operation and management of fire brigades,developing mitigating and preventive measures against landslide and foods are some of the assigned
task that local bodies can pursue by using the legal authority granted by the LSGA.
The NSDRM, developed on the base of Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005 as well, haspromulgated in 209 with the long term vision of the strategy is to develop Nepal as a disaster-resilient
community with adopting the some major directive principles for disaster risk management such as,
mainstream DRR concept into the development plan ensure life safety and social security, givenemphasis to gender and social inclusion. It adopt decentralize process of implementation with
one-window policy and cluster approach in implementation of DRM in the spirit of participation,interaction, and coordination. The strategy has been framed on the foundation of five priority actionsof HFA 2005 by identifying the 29 activities as the priority areas. Realizing that disaster management

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

51

is a multidimensional and multi-sectoral responsibility, the sectoral strategies have also been adopted
with nine broad sectors. The strategy has also proposed new institutional arrangement for disastermanagement which entail the formation of a National Disaster Management Council (NDMC) being
chaired by Prime Minister. Besides, it also envisions National Disaster Management Authority(NDMA) as a secretariat of the council where other three committees under the council for
preparedness, rescue and relief and reconstruction and rehabilitation activities. The strategy realizes
that disaster management is possible only through integrated, participatory, and collaborative
involvement of all partners by giving the due importance to UN agencies, donor community,
inter-governmental agencies, I/NGOs, and people from different segments of civil societies.
A Consortium, headed by Home Secretary was formed in May 2009 to support the Government of
Nepal till 2015, to develop a long term Disaster Risk Reduction Action Plan building on the NSDRM.
Members of the Consortium are from related government ministries and concerned development
partners. The Consortium has initiated a multi-stakeholder participatory process with the Governmentof Nepal and civil society organizations to identify short to medium term disaster risk reduction
priorities that are both urgent and viable within the current institutional and policy arrangements in the
country. Based on the priorities set by the government and also discussions with multi-stakeholder
groups, five flagship areas of immediate action for disaster risk management in Nepal has been
initiated . The five priority, in the name of flagship program are school and hospital safety, emergency
preparedness and response capacity, flood management in the Koshi river basin, integrated community
based disaster risk reduction/management and policy/Institutional support for disaster risk
management. In developing the program, the priorities outlined in the HFA 2005-2015 as building theresilience of nations and communities to disasters and the Outcomes of the Global Platform forDisaster Risk Reduction (2009) as setting out specific targets for reducing losses from disasters has
been taken into consideration as a basis.
As the history shows that the Disaster Management Programs was first included in the 10th national
plan (2002-2007) of the government of Nepal, the emphasis has given to ascending orders till thecurrent three year plan (2013/14-2015/16) that has emphasized the disaster management as a separate
topics and also has tried to mainstream the disaster management with various line items topics. This
has also focus on the importance of new disaster management act and new institutions to deal with thedisasters. The plan emphasizes on policy formulation, strengthening institutional mechanism, early
warning systems, coordinated approach for DRR and linking disaster management with climatechange. It is hoped that this attempt would be a landmark in the history of Disaster Management in
Nepal. The plan has set up its vision to minimize social and economic loss and damage caused bydisasters. The main objective of plan is to promote the security of life and property from the impact ofnatural disasters through sustainable, environment-friendly and result oriented development by making
disaster management practices efficient, competent, strengthened and effective. The approach paper to

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

52

the current 13th three year development plan (2013/14-2015/16) has clearly set its disastermanagement goal to achieve goal of Hyogo Framework for Action by 2015 and has also tried to linkup with the HFA2 Priorities, along with the long term goal of the plan is to develop disaster resilient
Nepal. Moreover, mainstreaming disaster risk reduction, institutional and legal reform andpreparedness for better response are the strategies of this plan.
There are lot more Acts, Rules, Regulations and Guidelines, directly related to, just related to andindirectly related to the disaster management, some of them like Soil and water conversation act, 1982,
Nepal building act, 2007 and Building Code, 1994, Environmental protection act, 1996, National
agriculture policy, 2004, National shelter policy, 1996, National urban policy, 2006, National waterplan, 2005 and Water resource policy, 1993, National water resource strategy, 2002, Water induced
disaster management policy, 2006 and some Strategies related to health and infrastructure sectors are
considered as a majors in the area of disaster management in Nepal.
Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) acts as National Focal Agency on Disaster Management and leadagency responsible for implementation of the Natural Calamity (Relief) Act, 1982. The MOHA is also
responsible for rescue and relief work, data collection and dissemination, as well as collection anddistribution of funds and resources. The assigned task has being implemented through Disaster
Management Section and National Emergency Operation Centre. The Ministry has established aseparate Division of disaster management, placing three sections namely Disaster Preparedness andRecovery Section and Disaster Study and Research Section along with the response focused National
Emergency Operation Center.
Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development, Disaster Management Section is responsible leadministry for preparedness and mitigation, Ministry of Urban Development is responsible lead ministry
for recovery, Ministry of Irrigation for embankment and irrigation is related disaster management
activities, Ministry of Defense is for foreign search and rescue coordination, Ministry of Forest andSoil Conservation is for forest and land related disaster management activities, Ministry of Energy forwater dam and Ministry of Health and Population is for emergency medical care. Similarly, Ministryof Physical Infrastructure and Transport Management, Ministry of Science and Technology,
Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management, Department of Irrigation,
Epidemiology and Disease Control Division, National Seismological Center Department of Water
Induced Disaster Prevention, Department of Hydrology and Meteorology and Department of Minesand Geology are some of the other direct institutions dealing with disaster management activities at
operational level.
5.5

Disaster management institution and regulation in light of disaster event in Nepal

Disaster Management institutions and Regulations in light of disaster events in Nepal has been listed

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

53

here based on the literature review and the reference materials, as follows :Major Disaster Eventszz

Regulations

1255 (1310 BS) , the first recorded

Institutions and Remarks

General rules and regulation relatedzPrime Minister and Home Minister

earthquake in history of Nepal

to maintain law and social harmony,zHome Ministry, mobilizing the1260 (1316 BS), recorded big

not specific to disaster managementzpolice and Army (as per need) forearthquake

disaster responsez1408 (1463 BS), a major earthquakez1833 (1890 BS) great earthquakez1934 (1990 BS) Great Earthquakez

Relief work has been carrying out atthat time as a social workwith magnitude of 8.4 on the
Richter scale, leaving 8519 people
losing the liveszz1980 (2037 BS), 6.5 Richter scalez

Natural Calamity (Relief ) Act,
1982 (1st revision in 1989 and 2nd

Committee (CNDRC), headed bycountry

in 1992 Sep)

Home Minister, active from 1982
Regional Disaster Relief Committee

1988 (2045 BS), UdayapurzLocal Self Governance Act, 1999

Earthquake with 721 deaths, 6553

z

Central Natural Disaster Response(RDRC), headed by Regional

Fund established by the Act of 1892

Administrator from 1982

buildings, 468 public houses, 790•zDistrict Disaster Relief Committee

government buildings damaged(DDRC), headed by Chief District

1993 flood in the Terai region,

Officer from 1982

taking life of 1,289 people andzaffecting 575,000 peoplezCentral Natural Disaster Relief

earthquake in eastern part of thepeople injured, 64174 privatezzCelebration of National Earthquake
Safety Day from 1999

1994 (2051 BS) earthquake in Mid
Western Region affecting around
700 peoplez

1998, flood affecting an about half
million people with the total loss ofabout 2 billion Nepal rupees

z

2008

Big

Flood

at

Koshi

Rescue and Relief Standards, 2007z

National Strategy for DRM, 2009

River/River embankment collapse,(1st revision in 2008 and 2nd inz

The Cabinet at OPMCM takes

living 2.7 million people affecting

2012 Jun)(both at Nepal and India) andzzaround 200 people deathzactive role from 2008

Prime Minister Disaster Response

National

Risk

Reduction

Fund Guideline 2006, (1st revision

Consortium (NRRC) 2009-2014,

in 2008)

chaired by Home Secretary fromPM

Natural Disaster

Response

Fund from 2006zzz

Disaster Related Funds at Line

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

2009
Five Flagship Program 2009-2014from 2009ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

54Ministries, in process of creationz

from 2008

DisasterPreparedness

andResponse Plan (DPRP) Guideline,
2011•

Rescue and Treatment
Sub-committee chaired by Healthand Population Minister play activerole from 2008z

Supply, Shelter and Rehabilitation
Subcommittee, chaired by Urban
Minister play active role from 2008z

National

Emergency

Operation

Center at National Levels andRegional/District

Emergency

Centers (EOCs) from 2010z

SAHANA

Programfor

datacollection,

processing

and

for

dissemination from 2011z

National Platform on Disaster Risk
Reduction, 2008, NPDRRz

PublicationofDisaster

Reportstarted, till date the reports are of
2009, 2011, 2013z2011 Sikkim Eartahquake with 6.8(1st revision in 2008 and 2nd in

affecting thousand of people of the2012 Jun)z2012 (May 5) A great avalanches at
Seti River, taking life of 72 peoplezzGuideline, 2012, LDRMPz

Government

Work

Division

Regulation, 2012 May

Local Disaster Risk Management

Guideline

for

the

relieftocold-wave victims, 2012z

Various Line Ministries, presuming

Local Level Disaster Management

the duty of Disaster Managementand damaging millions of worth

Funds, mobilized by the District

creating either unit or focal point2012 (May), a big fire in Siraha

Developmentfrom 2012

District,from 2012burningaround2010

thecold-wavez

1008

houses affecting 2063 peoplezRescue and Relief Standards, 2007

Magnitude killing 16 People andeast part of the country
z

z

start

Committee

activezz

Open Space Cabinet Decision, 2013z

DirectiveforRelieffrom

National

Disaster

Response

Framework, 2012z

Ten

Cluster

and

Early

owned

by

considering the major disaster in

Cold-wave to the economically

Recovery

Terai Region and the incident of firedeprive people, 2012

Government Ministries from 2012

has increased in those regionsz

Networkone

Post-Disaster

Dead

body

management Guideline, 2012z

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

APF Disaster Management Training

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

55Center, along with DM from 2012z

Ministry of Home Affairs, Disaster
Management Division in 2013z

Disaster management section at
MOFALD

and

DM

Units

in

different Ministries from 2013z

DM Units/Squared/Brigades at thethree Security Forces from 2013z

2014 (August), Sunkoshi Blockedz

National Strategic Action Plan onz

DRR Portal, one stop to all disasterby big landslide, affecting aroundSearch and Rescue, 2014 approved

related activities in Nepal fromthousands of people in upper andby cabinet

2014

lower river streamsz

HealthEmergency

Operation

Center,along

Emergency

withCenters at TIA, Red cross, Security
forces and UN Agencies from 2014z

Since 1971 there is a record ofsignificant

loss

of

lives

z

z

and

livelihoods due to floods, landslideand fires on every single year

National Disaster Management Act( Proposed) in process till to datez

Establishment of National Disaster
Management Agency (NDMA) is inprocess

As the past major disaster events were found quoted in various publications, the response has beenfound considering from then rulers with the use of general rules and regulation related to maintain law
and social harmony or not having specific to disaster management and the management of disaster has
been considered as a part of social work. In the time of disaster, the response mechanism of the states
were working promptly directly under the leadership of then rulers. Even after the restoration of
democracy, the situation for the management of disaster remained same as before till the formation of
Natural Calamity (Relief ) Act, 1982. This has given the 1st legal base to have better and coordinateddisaster management both at policy and implementation level. By observing the above listing of theincidents and subsequently rules and institutions, it is very difficult to established the relationshipbetween them, directly quoting as a lesson learned, beside the Koshi Flood 2008.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

56

CHAPTER SIX : DISASTER AND INSTITUTIONS/REGULATION IN JAPANDisaster response and DM institution/regulation in the light of disaster incidents
6.1

Disaster prone Japan and the major responses carried out'Destructive natural disasters have posed greatest challenge for Japanese society. Unfavorable
geographical, topographical and meteorological conditions of the country have made it one of the mostdisaster prone countries in the world. Although its territory accounts merely for the 0.25 % of theplanet’s land area, Japan is subject to about 20.5 % earthquakes with the magnitude 6 or more; and 7%of the world’s active volcanoes is located on its territory. The most frequent natural hazards in Japanare earthquakes, Tsunamis, typhoons, volcano eruptions, floods and landslides. Occasional torrential
rains and heavy snows are another challenge for the country. The high number of earthquakes,
Tsunamis and active volcanoes are the conditioned by the fact that territory of Japan forms the part
Circum-Pacific Seismic Belt which is sometimes called as Pacific Ring of Fire (Nazarov, 2011).
'Disaster management system of Japan addresses all phases of disaster prevention, mitigation andpreparedness, and emergency response, as well as recovery and rehabilitation. Japan’s central
government plays a leading role in mitigating the risks of disaster across the country, but local
governments have the principal responsibility for managing the DRM systems. The Reconstruction
Agency, which the prime minister heads, was established under the oversight of the cabinet office topromote and coordinate reconstruction policies and measures in an integrated manner (Makoto, 2012).
The Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act, 1962 is the basic foundation for the management of disasterin Japan, as it is carried out at every stage of disaster prevention, emergency response to disaster, andrecovery and reconstruction. The Basic formation of the disaster prevention is the master plan in thearea of disaster management, and it is created by the Central Disaster Management Council (CDMC).
This master plan presents the basic guidelines for establishment of the disaster management system,
promotion of disaster management projects, development of faster and more appropriate disasterrecovery, assignment of priorities in disaster management operation plans and regional disastermanagement plans by assigning clear and distinct role for both governmental and nongovernmentalorganization. The master plan provides a basis for every ministry and agency along with for the otherdisaster management-related organizations such as the Bank of Japan and Japan Broadcasting
Corporation to create their disaster management operation plans, whereby local governments create
regional disaster management plans, and whereby all these bodies implement their disastermanagement countermeasures (Cabinet Office, 2011).
As the VR Nazarov conclude by saying 'being one of the most disaster prone countries in the world,
Japan has developed sophisticated and all-embracing disaster management system. Based on 3-layered
national government system and administrative delimitation of the country, formation and evolution of
the disaster management system in Japan has been heavily influenced by unfavorable geographicalResearcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

57

position, as well as, meteorological, and topographical conditions and various large-scale disasters
have been driving force of new changes and enhancements to it. Although inheriting some basic
elements of previous systems, current disaster management of Japan has been formed during the last
50-60 years. Rapid development of the country during this period enabled it to make considerable
investments on DMS and integrate latest technological achievements of the country to it. Rather thanbeing managed by one central body disaster management system of Japan is decentralized andgrowing trend of decentralization is being observed recent years. As one of the most prominent
characteristic features of the system decentralization enables more government agencies to be involved
in disaster management, although to various extent and bearing various responsibilities, fosters
development disaster coping capability of each body or region individually and enhancement overall
disaster management system (Nazarov, 2011).
A number of laws are enacted to address all the phases of disaster reduction. For example, Large-scale
Earthquake Countermeasures Special Act and Earthquake Disaster Management Special Measures Act
for building nation and communities resilient to disasters. Disaster Relief Act and Act Regarding
Special Measures to Weigh the Preservation of Rights and Profits of the Victims of Specified
Disasters for immediate support to the affected populations and local authorities. Act Concerning
Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims and Act Concerning Special Financial
Support to Deal with Designated Disasters of Extreme Severity for better recovery to safer
communities. All the line ministries and agencies have responsibility to take actions related to disaster
reduction within their own mandate. The Cabinet Office is responsible for formulating basic policies,
strategies and guidelines for disaster reduction and for securing coordination of government disaster
reduction activities. A post of Minister of State for Disaster Management was newly established in the
Cabinet in 2001 who takes lead in the responsibilities for disaster reduction in the Natural Government.
Under the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act, the Central Disaster Management Council was formed
to ensure multi-ministerial and multi-sector involvement in disaster reduction in a coordinated manner.
Not only all the Ministers but also Heads of relevant public corporations such as the Bank of Japan,
the Japanese Red Cross Society, NHK (public broadcasting corporation) and NTT (telecommunicationcompany), and some academic experts are the member of the Council. The Council formulates theDisaster Management Basic Plan and other basic policies, strategies and guidelines.
6.2

Response at the Great East Japan Earthquake

Response from Government (both central, prefectural and municipal level) and non-Government
sector at the Great East Japan Earthquake can be take as an example to see the effectiveness ofJapanese disaster management system. 'At 14:46 p.m. on March 11, 2011, a strong earthquake ofmagnitude 9.0 earthquake at 14:46 and the series of large scale earthquakes that followed had resulted
in multiple Tsunami waves of unprecedented scales at the coastal areas of Hokkaido, Aomori, Iwate
Miyagi, Fukui, Ibaraki, and Chiba Prefectures (ADRC, 2011). 'It devastated cities, towns, and villages

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

58

along a broad swath of the Pacific coast of the Tohoku Region in northeastern Japan, causing vast
human and material damage. In Tokyo, the intensity of the quake was measured at level 5-upper on theJapanese scale, but there was only minor damage. The magnitude of 9.0 made it the largest earthquake
ever measured in Japan, and the fourth largest in the world since 1900. The earthquakes and the huge
Tsunami that followed caused heavy casualties and enormous damage in the northeastern area and its
vicinity, such as the Kanto Region. As of April 27, 2011, the government has confirmed 14,508 deaths
and 11,452 people missing as a result of the disaster (ADRC, 2011). These figures have alreadyexceeded that of the 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji (Kobe) Earthquake, making it the worst disaster inJapan since World War II. The response and rehabilitation work done by Japanese Government isenormously good with proper response. The recovery part in Japan covers life, livelihood,infrastructure and social resettlement, as the ADRC paper refers 'residents are one of the highest
priorities in Japan after earthquake. Livelihood and employment, which were not often given thehighest priorities, are among the highest priorities in Japan, giving the equal importance to theprovision of physical and mental health care for those directly affected by the earthquake, especially
focusing on plans for restoring infrastructure and redeveloping urban environments in order toestablish collaboration among efforts targeting roads, railroads, airports, ports and sewage facilities(ADRC, 2012).
The earthquake and the resulting Tsunamis (tidal waves) devastated a vast area and caused a great
number of casualties. Large numbers of buildings and facilities were damaged or washed away.
Constraints on electric power supply intensified over a wide area, mainly due to the accident at anuclear power station. The financial sector in Japan was seriously impacted by the disaster, in terms ofboth physical damage and indirect effects. At this earthquake, the Bank's has effective Responses tothe Disaster, it has establish a Disaster Management Team, provisioned for cash Services, supply the
cash to financial institutions, exchange of damaged banknotes and coins to ensure the stable Operationof the BOJ-NET. It has also requested for Special Financial Measures to Assist Disaster Areas to makesure the smooth operation of Treasury Funds and JGB Services with accurate and timely
communication.
At this disaster the response from private sector was also praiseworthy. The main actor of private
sectors like Financial Institutions and Payment and Settlement Systems in Disaster Areas supply ofcash to affected depositors in coordination and cooperation with financial institutions. The measurestaken by bill and check clearing houses and the responses of Payment and Settlement Systems andFinancial Institutions throughout Japan has established the stable operation by payment and settlement
systems. The system failure at a major bank and extension of Zengin System operating hours has
managed by the market-wide business continuity arrangements through the the responses to surges in
trading activity in stock markets and through the responses to blackouts in disaster areas and planned
blackouts in TEPCO service areas. The report concludes that payment and settlement systems andResearcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

59

financial institutions in Japan continued to operate stably even in the wake of the unprecedented
disaster, and succeeded in maintaining smooth provision of financial services. This was largely due tothe dedicated efforts of financial institutions in disaster areas that worked hard to restore their businessoffices and resume operations to meet the needs of depositors and firms, even though they had also
been affected by the disaster. It also reflected the constant efforts made by payment and settlement
systems and financial institutions to put in place robust business continuity arrangements prior to thedisaster (BOJ, 2011).
The Prime Minister, on April 15, posted his message on several newspapers overseas (Washington
Post and Herald Tribune) stating: “The government will dedicate itself to demonstrating to the world
its ability to establish the most sophisticated reconstruction plans for East Japan, based on threeprinciples: first, create a regional society that is highly resistant to natural disasters; second, establish asocial system that allows people to live in harmony with the global environment; and third, build acompassionate society that cares about people, in particular, the vulnerable (ADRC, 2011)'. Thisshows the priority from the government in Japan. 'Great East Japan Earthquake has low probability but
high impact, high level of complexity, widespread impact due to globalized supply chains. Japan’s
DRM system is based on investment in structural and non-structural measures, Culture ofpreparedness and learning from past disasters, Multi-stakeholder involvement, Legislation, regulation,and enforcement High-tech, sophisticated instruments (world bank, 2012b).
6.3

Linkages of disaster and policy changes in JapanA Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923 with 450,000 house damaged and 143,000 people dead/missing,lead the policy changes the requirement of Seismic Force base Structural Calculation in Japanese
Building Code. This was the first requirement in the world. The amendment was made in 1924. The
enactment of the Building Standard Law (BSL) made in 1950 can not prevent much houses in the
Niigata Earthquake in 1964 and Tokachi Off-Shore earthquake in 1968, this has further pave the way
for the amendment of the BSL to strengthen the RC standards. The Ise-wan Typhoon in 1959 hastriggered the Government of Japan to enact new specific law directly related to disaster management
and it has come-up in the name of Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act 1961. The Miyagi Off-shore
Earthquake in 1978 has further pressurize for the further amendment of the BSL with new Seismic
Codes, targeting not damaged by medium-scale earthquakes and not collapse by large-scale
earthquakes.
A Great Hansin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 hit Kobe City and surrounding areas collapsing 104,906
houses, damaging 6148 buildings and killing 6,433 people. Most of the collapse building were thosewhich were constructed before 1981, when the new Seismic Building Regulation were enforced.
Therefore the Seismic enforcement of old buildings were become utmost importance in Japan. It also
gave the way for the Act for Supporting Livelihood Recovery of Victims 1999 and helped to provide

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

60

mandate to the Self-Defense Force directed to disaster response. The Act of Promotion of Seismic
Retrofitting of Buildings, targeting the approval of seismic retrofitting plans were enacted in 1995 andfurther amendment of the BSL, aiming the building confirmation by private sector, introduction ofinterim inspection and performance-based standards were made in 1998 from the lesson learned fromthe Great Hansin-Awaji Earthquake.
The West Off Fukuoka Earthquake in 2005, the Off Niigata-Chuetsu Earthquake in 2007, the Noto
Peninsula Earthquake in 2007, the Iwate-Miyagi Inland Earthquake in 2008 and Iwate North Coast
Earthquake in 2008 was some of the events that has tested the strength of the Building Standard Law
and has given some insight view for further improvement. The Great East-Japan Earthquake in 2011
hit Pacific Coast of Tohoku of Japan, causing the hit of Tsunami to the Tohoku Costal Area causearound 20,000 people death or missing. it leads the restriction of buildings in the Tsunami hazardous
area and placement of Tsunami evacuation buildings. Structural Design Method from the viewpoint ofstructural safety against Tsunami was designed and utilized. Some large fire cases like Sen-nichi
department store fire in 1972 with 118 deaths, Taiyo department store fire in 1973 with 100 deaths,
Hotel New Japan fire in 1982 with 33 deaths and Kawaji Prince Hotel fire in 1980 with 45 deaths has
also pressurized to revise the building codes. Fire codes concerning necessary number of stairs,
interior finishing materials, etc. was strengthened in 1973 and fire codes concerning automatic
sprinkler systems, etc. was strengthened in 1980. The laws related to building regulations are BuildingStandard Law, Fire Service Law, Barrier-free Law and Kenchikushi Law. Building code also consistof landslides and rainfall in Hilly area, typhoon, health position in house and the city planning, as pernecessity.
6.4

Disaster management institution and regulation in light of disaster events in Japan

Disaster Management institutions and Regulations in light of major disaster events in Japan, to reveal
the linkage of the disaster incident with the creation of institution creation and regulation formation,
can be listed as below :Major Disaster Events (Death Toll)

Regulations

Institutions and Remarks

1923 ・Great Kanto Eqk M7.9

1897 ・Erosion Control Act(142,807)

1924 ・First Seismic Building Code1925 ・North Tajima Eqk M6.8 (428)z1927 ・North Tango Eqk M7.3 (2,925)

Kanto Eqk of 1923

Traditional institutions

Directly impacted by Great

1930 ・North Izu Eqk M7.3 (272)1933 ・Showa Sanriku Eqk & Tsunami
M8.1 (3,064)
1943 ・Tottori Eqk M7.2 (1,083)
1944 ・Tonankai Eqk M7.9 (998)

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

611945 ・Mikawa Eqk M6.8 (2,306)

1947 ・Disaster Relief Act

1945 ・Typhoon Makurazaki (3,756)

1949 ・Flood Control Act

1946 ・Nankai Earthquake M8 (1,443)

1950 ・Building Standard Law

1947 ・Typhoon Catherine (1,930)z

1948 ・Fukui Earthquake M7.1 (3,769)

Eqk of 1948

Directly impacted by Fukui

1948 ・Ion Typhoon (838)1950 ・Jane Typhoon (539)1951 ・Ruth Typhoon (943)1952 ・Tokachi-oki Eqk M8.2 (33)1953 ・North Kyushu Rain

1957 ・ Dam Control Multipurpose

1953 ・Nanki Torrential Rain (1,124)Act

Epoch-Making Turning Point and it1954 ・Toyamaru Typhoon (1,761)

1960 ・Soil Conservation and Flood1958 ・Kanogawa Typhoon (1,269)

Control Urgent Measures Act

1959 ・Typhoon Ise-wan (5,098)

1961 ・ Disaster Countermeasures1960 ・Chile Earthquake M8.5 (139)1960 ・Ise-wan Typhoon was the 1st

Basic Act, 1961, DCBA

has enacted the DCMB Act, 1961z

From

Responseorientedtopreventive approachz

Individualtocomprehensive

multi-sector approachz

Expendituretoinvestmentfordisaster risk reductionz

National to national, prefecture andmunicipal

government

responsibilities
1961 ・Heavy Snowfalls

1962 ・Act on Special Financial

1961 ・Formulation of comprehensive

1964 ・Niigata Earthquake M7.5 (26)Support to Deal with Extremely

and strategic DM System

1968 ・Tokachi-oki Eqk M7.9 (52)Severe Disastersz

1962 ・Act on Special Measures for
Heavy Snowfall Areas

Disaster countermeasurez

1966 ・Act on Earthquake Insurance,
this action is made from Niigata

Annual Gov't Official Report on

Investment for disasterpreventionzFormulation of National DRR
Platform

Eqk, 1964zDefinition of responsibility of
DM and state of disasteremergency

1962・Establishment of Central
Disaster Management Council,
provisioned by DCBA, 1961
1963・Basic Disaster Management
Plan for Disaster Prevention,
provisioned by DCBA, 1961

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

62

1961・Designation of Disaster
Reduction Day
1973 ・Mt. Sakurajima Eruption

1973 ・ Act on Special Measures for1973 ・Mt. Asama Eruption
1974 ・Izu-hanto-oki Equk M6.9 (30)

Active Volcanoes

Countermeasures Basic Plan

1978 ・Act on Special Measures for

1976 ・ Seismological Society ofLarge-Scale Earthquakes

Japan's report about the possibility of

1980 ・Act on Special Financial

Tokai Earthquake
1978 ・Izu-Oshima Kinkai Eqk M7

1979・Tokai Earthquake

1980・Countermeasure Improvement
Projects in Areas for Intensified

Measures for Urgent Earthquake
1981 ・Amendment of Building

Measures1981 ・Revision of Building Standard
Law

(25)

Standard Law, the Miyagi-ken-oki

1983・Designation of Disaster1978 ・Miyagi-ken-oki Eqk M7.4 (28)

Eqk of 1974 has lead thisReduction Week Campaign

1983 ・Japan Sea/Nihonkai Chubu Eqk
M7.7 (104)1984 ・Nagano-ken Seibu Eqk M6.8
(29)
1993 ・Hokaido Nansei-0ki

1995 ・Amendment of Disaster

1995・Amendment of Basic Disaster

Miyagi-ken-oki Eqk M7.8 (230)Countermeasures Basic Act, 1961,

Management

1995 ・Great Hanshin-Awaji/Souththe Great Hanshin-Awaji Eqk,

Disaster Reduction and Volunteer Day

Hyogo

Eqk M7.3 (6,437)

1995 has pressurized for this1995 ・Great Hansin-Awaji Eqk was

1999 ・Torrential Rains in Hiroshima

1995 ・Act on Special Measures for1999 ・JCO Nuclear Accident

Earthquake Disaster

Plan

Designation

2nd Epoch-making turning point
z

about

83%

was

killedimmediately by house collapse

Countermeasures
1995 ・Act on Promotion of thez

Buildingsz1995 ・Amendment of Act on Special
Measures for Large-scale

Most rescue done by family andcommunity people

Earthquake-proof Retrofit t ofHouse safely is the responsibilityof house ownerz

Business continuity planning isimportant

Earthquakes
1996 ・Act on Special Measures forzof the Victims of Specified

Importancez

1997 ・Act on Promotion of Disasterpre-disasterfocus shifted from government
centeredDisastersofmeasure has high importancePreservation of Rights and Profitstomulti-stakeholders

approach

Resilience Improvement inDensely Inhabited Areas
1998 ・Act on Support for Livelihood
Recovery of Disaster Victims
1999 ・Act for Supporting Livelihood

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepalof

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

63

Recovery of Victims
1999 ・Act on Special Measures for
Nuclear Disasters
1999 ・Self-Defense Force, getting
Mandate for Disaster Response
2000 ・Torrential Rains in the Tokai

2000 ・Act on Promotion of Sediment2001・Establishment of the Cabinet

RegionDisaster Countermeasures for

Office2004 ・Niigata-Fukushima Torrential

Sediment Disaster Prone Areas

2003・Policy Framework for Tokai

Rains and other rains

2101 ・Amendment of Flood Control

2004 ・Niigata-ken-Chuetsu Eqk M6.8

Act

Earthquake
2003・Policy Framework for Tonankai

2002 ・Act on Special Measures for

and Nankai Earthquakes

2004 ・Heavy Rain Nationwide

Promotion of Tohnankai and2003・Tokai Earthquake

2007 ・Noto Peninsula Eqk M6.9 (1)Nankai Earthquake Disaster

Countermeasures Basic Plan

2007 ・Niigata Chuetsu Eqk M6.8 (15)Management

2004・Tonankai and Nankai(68)2008 ・Tagagawa Flash Flood

2003 ・Specified Urban River

2008 ・Iwate/Miyagi Inland Eqk M7.2
(23)

Inundation Countermeasures Act
2004 ・Act on Special Measures for

Earthquake Countermeasures BasicPlan
2005・Tokai Earthquake Disaster

Promotion of Disaster Management

Reduction Strategy

for Trenchtype Earthquakes in the2005・Tonankai and Nankai

Vicinity of the Japan and Chishima

Earthquake Disaster Reduction

Trenches

Strategy

2005 ・Amendment of Flood Control

2005・Policy Framework for Tokyo
InlandAct
2005 ・ Amendment of Act on

Earthquakes

Promotion of Sediment Disaster2006・Policy Framework forCountermeasures

Trench-type Earthquakes in thefor

Sediment

Vicinity of the Japan and Chishima

Disaster Prone Areas
2005 ・ Amendment of Act on

Trenches

Promotion of the Earthquake-proof

2006・Tokyo Inland Earthquake

Retrofit of Buildings

Disaster Reduction Strategy

2005 ・Hazard Map (at municipality
level) Preparation Guideline
2006 ・ Amendment of Act on the2006・Basic Framework for promoting
a Nationwide Movement for Disaster
Reduction

Regulation of Residential Land2008・Disaster Management Strategy

Development

for Trench-type Earthquakes in theVicinity of the Japan and Chishima
Trenches
2009・Chubu and Kinki regions Inland

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

64

Earthquake Countermeasures Basic
Plan
2011 ・Talas (No.12) Typhoon

2011 ・Tsunami Resident City

2011 ・Great East Japan Earthquake &Tsunami M9.0 (18,559)

Development Act, 20112012 ・Amendment of Disaster2014 ・Hiroshima Landslide (50)Countermeasures Basic Act, 1961
2013 ・Re-amendment of DCBA,
1961, these amendments is becauseof the Great East Eqk of 2011
Reforms are in process

International disaster assistance by Japan
1999 ・Earthquake in Turkey

Cooperated opening disaster management education center2011 ・Flood in Thailand

Drainage pump vehicles, 8.1 million cubic meters water drained
Investigation team and recommendation provided

2013 ・Typhoon Haiyan in Philippines

Dispatch medical support team
Relief supplies
Emergency grant aid

Disaster management in this country (Japan) is carried out at every stage of disaster prevention,
emergency response to disaster, and recovery and reconstruction following disaster. A special board of
inquiry of the Central Disaster Management Council has studied large-scale earthquakes such as theTokai Earthquake, Tonankai and Nankai Earthquakes, major earthquakes centered in Tokyo, andocean trench earthquakes occurring in the vicinity of the Japan Trench and Chishima Trench. It is tobe hoped that the entire nation will join in the work of disaster preparation. The geographical featuresand meteorological conditions found in Japan make this country susceptible to earthquakes, typhoons,
torrential rains, volcanic eruptions, and other such disasters (Kazusa, 2010).

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

65

CHAPTER SEVEN : CONCLUSION AND FINDING
A designated proper institution for overall disaster management at national level
7.1

Changing focus form response to preparedness

The changing focus form response to preparedness can be found in worldwide, especially after the
Hyogo Conference 2005. This has found extended to national level significantly, as 'disasters werepreviously perceived as isolated events which need to be responded with ‘emergency relief’ as thestandard norm. The normal practice was to provide disaster relief by different line ministries withreactive or relief focus rather than proactive or risk mitigation and management focus. It is now
recognized that disaster management is more effective if it is preceded by preparedness and the relief
is followed by rehabilitation and reconstruction (Jayawardan, 2007). The world communities arechanging their focus from response management to preparedness of natural disaster.
Previously more budget used for response, as the budget amount pulled-over from other heading intime of disaster response. The situation has changed now, as shift focus on preparedness from
response, and the budget for Preparedness has significantly increased. India has witnessed as it has tospend more money for response and relief in the absence of proper preparedness. 'Several state
governments spend significantly more on relief and damages than on their rural development
programs. For example, in the state of Maharashtra, India, a single drought in 2003 and a flood in2005 consumed more of the state budget (US $3.5 billion) than the entire planned expenditure (US$3.04 billion) on irrigation, agriculture, and rural development for the 2002–2007 planning period(world bank, 2012).If we don't shift our focus to preparedness, then we have to continuously spend
more money for disaster response and relief. This exemplary data also revels the shift of the priority
from efficient response to proper preparedness.
7.2

ERT vs DPT, Emergency response vs. disaster preparedness types

Disaster Management (DM) is said to have two types. Emergency Response Type (ERT) and Disaster
Preparedness Type (DPT). The ERT, Emergency Response Type is lead by Security Related Agencies,
focuses more on response. It is a 'Cure Method' done for the victims. In this type at time of disaster, allrelated agencies will be actively dedicate for better response and at the time of no-disaster, thedesignated nodal agency for disaster management feels bit relax, as this method gives less focus on
disaster preparedness. The DPT, Disaster Preparedness Type is lead by Development Related
Agencies, focuses more on preparedness. It is a 'Care Method' done for everyone. In this type at timeof no-disaster, all related agencies actively participate for better preparedness and at the time ofdisaster, the DPT cannot work well. So-many countries including Nepal is adopting the ERT Model ofDM and so-many countries including Japan is adopting the DPT Model of DM.
The institutional set-up do matter to determine the types but, in some case, although they have separate

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

66

NDMA, but still there system considered as ERT, like Mangolia have NDMA, US has FEMA andRussia has EMERCON as a NDMA. But theier NDMA is controlled by Security Related Agencies. So,
although they have separate focal agency for disaster management, their system still considered as
ERT. To have shift from ERT to DPT, it is necessary to have the NDMA, but it should not have to becontrolled by Security Related Agency. In Nepal scenario, if we create the NDMA under the Ministryof Home, then the mistake that has made by Mongolia and Russia, we are going to repeat again. To
have a proper shift from ERT to DPT, it is most important to establish a separate focal agency directly
under the Prime-Minister Office, or it is highly important that the location of NDMO do matter for theoverall management of disaster at national level. Of letting the job of effective response to the security
related agencies, other jobs of preparedness and recovery has to be assigned the other development
related Ministries, assuming the role of coordination and integration to the higher authority directly
under the Prime-Minister. Only the ERT and DPT methods solely does not work in the real casescenario, so some sort of balance is needed between them and what could be the proper balance, itwould be the interesting research question for future research.
7.3

Coordinating agency of government for DRR at national level

The management of disaster from policy perspective with proper institutional framework by shifting
focus from response to preparedness has become utmost important and has become extremely urgent
for any nations, as 'natural disasters are caused by extreme occurrences in nature for which society isunprepared. Disasters have not only disrupted the normal course of life of affected communities andcountries in South Asian Region, but have also halted development efforts. Funds originally
earmarked for new initiatives must be transferred to relief, response, and rehabilitation work, often
crowding out new infrastructure and capital development (world bank, 2012).
National Focal Point or Coordinating Agencies at Government level can be seen a backgroundrecommendation by the UNISDR Papers, as it is advocating for the 'establishing a proper national
agency for overall disaster coordination (Hyogo, 2005). It can also be drown from 'in order to reduce
vulnerability to natural and other types of hazards, the public sector and concerned stakeholders
should be institutionally organized, adequately staffed and trained. In the absence of adequate
institutional capacity other efforts aimed at reducing vulnerability cannot be effectively realized. The
Yokohama Strategy, adopted at the World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction in May 1994,
mentioned 'human and institutional capacity-building and strengthening 'as an important component of
the prevention, reduction and mitigation of natural disasters (UNISDR, 2000). This demands astronger coordinating agency at national level.
The six criteria, set by the ADBI Working Paper 448 to find out the strength of the National
Coordinating Agencies for the ability to coordinate other disaster management actors : the national
platform, coordinated by the focal agency functions as the highest decision making body,Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

67

Sub-committees under the national platforms play important roles in coordinating specific issues,
political commitment should be secured in coordinating mechanisms, focal point agencies in national
governments should have a mandate to allocate DRM budgets, focal point agencies can utilize drills
and training as opportunities to strengthen coordinating capacities and networks, focal point agencies
can strengthen its coordinating powers (Mikio, 2013 ADBI) can also be used to judged the strength of
the National Focal Agencies. Based on these six criteria, it is important to analyze the situations and itis needed another data-base research how the current coordinating agency in Nepal is presuming theduty of disaster preparedness with proper coordination.
7.4

Disaster management as a business for all

Disaster management is not only business for any specific agency, rather it goes well with all line
agencies including government and non-government sectors. Previously the meaning of disastermanagement is just a response, mean response focus disaster management. At that time, disaster has
been centrally managing by security forces and security related ministries. Changing shift of themeaning of disaster management, as it goes from the response focus to preparedness focus, it isconsidered to have this managed by all agencies. 'Single-sector development planning cannot address
the complexity of problems posed by natural hazards, let alone mega disasters, nor can such planningbuild resilience to threats (world bank 2012b). As UNISDR has promoted the concept of 'engagementof all government and non-government sectors and actors in the name of DRR Platform (Hyogo, 2005),
many more signatory countries of HFA has established the platform. Nepal is also one of the country
that has established the platform (HFA Update, Nepal) but the real functionalities and effectiveness isalways a critical, as it's role mainly focused on sharing and discussing the DRR issue, rather then any
official decision. It can be seen globally, including Nepal the getting accepted the concept that disastermanagement as a business for all government and non-government stakeholders.
7.5

Coordination from the central coordinating agency

In the UNISDR framework architect, it has been visualize a coordinating agency, which can cover all related
agencies. 'While the responsibility for monitoring progress on DRR lies with national governments, it is needed
to collect data and help strengthen national and local monitoring capacity. Such a body would need to involve
national statistical offices and other relevant governmental bodies. This could be supported by regional technicalagencies, with data also drawn from the scientific community to establish risk profiles, from technology
companies and from other groups on disaster losses. The institutional architecture should span the post-2015
agreement on DRR and the SDGs so as not to create duplication (Tom Mitchell, 2014)'. The national instituteneed to include the all related stakeholders from government and non-government.

The National Disaster Preparedness Central Committee, headed by Prime Minister is apex lead bodyin Myanmar and the Fire Services Department Headquarters, under the Ministry of Social Welfare,
Relief and Resettlement, served as the secretariat and National Disaster Preparedness Management

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

68Working Committee chaired by 1st secretary where most of the the Ministers serving as a members(ADPC, 2009) and means the overall coordination at National level is presuming by the Fire Services.
The ADPC report further emphasize that ' although there is a well-laid out systems at all levels fordisaster management, the operational capacities for each of the unit and inter and intra coordination
mechanisms still needs to be further enhanced (ADPC, 2009). It can be clearly visualize that thewithout the absence of central coordinating agency in any form, like cabinet office, separate ministry
or NDMA, the disaster management in the country gives lot of room for improvement. This lesson canbe drawn for the observing the disaster management system of Myanmar.
Nepal is facing multi-sector problem of implementation like 'poor land use planning and ill-enforcedbuilding codes result in structures that are highly vulnerable to hazard events. Without a strong cultureof safety and proper enforcement mechanisms to ensure resilient construction of buildings, thesestructures are often not strong enough to withstand hazard events (world bank, 2012), as the line
agencies are busy with their own line item programs having less focus on the implementation of DRR
concept, as the focal coordinating agency MOHA more concentrate on response and it's preparedness.
Coordination power with the Imagine for future in DRR is important. For disaster management,
having more focus on only response does not create permanently the happiness to people. Oncedisaster occurs, all agencies are running behind the disaster and after disaster finished, there is no
sufficient attention not allow for further damage in future. It seeks the preparedness and it has to comeup with 'Imagine for Future (Tsukuba, 2012)' that sufficiently allow us for better preparedness byimagining the future prospect for development. For this reason, it is important to visualize whether theoverall disaster has been managing by one specific agency responsible for response or it has been
managing by a higher apex body that also poses the power for coordination.
7.6

Use of learned lessons

Every disaster has it's own lesson learned for the future. In Nepal, the lesson has been learned by
Ministry of Home Affairs, whose primary responsibility to maintain peace and order in the nation. So,
lesson learned from MOHA will difficulty in materializing in terms of program and budget. MOHA is
responsible for search, rescue and relief, as it is doing its job in perfect way. Having said this or having
effective response action from MOHA, the the preparedness part is always left behind. The Ministry is
having less focus on disaster preparedness in time of no-disaster. This is not the Ministry's intention tohave less work on DRR, but this is all about the designated role and responsibility along with itspriority. Immediate after disaster, lot more lifeline utilities has to be restored in no time with proper
relief for live and livelihood as well. Japan is seem doing the job properly, cause it has allocated its
role to different central, prefectural and city level government and also it has incorporated the role ofprivate sector in disaster management council. This has become possible for Japan, cause it has
managed at national level from Cabinet Office Disaster Management Office, from where the allnational level coordination is possible. In Nepal, if we could have manage the overall disaster from the

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

69

Cabinet Office of Nepal, then it could have implemented the lesson learned in past.
'Specialized DRM focal point ministries/agencies are expected to play a vital role in coordinating thesemany activities and ensuring their relevance to medium- and long-term development objectives andactivities. In this context, sound analyses and understanding of the role of formal and informalorganizations in natural DRM, their institutional and technical capacities (including strengths andweaknesses), best operational and technical practices, and comparative strengths in coordinating andpromoting vertical and horizontal linkages are required (FAO, 2008). The question again arise, since
MOHA is presuming the role of focal ministry in Nepal, does this ministry is fulfilling this role withthe use of learning for the past in proper way.
One lesson learned from past catastrophic events such as the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake,
Hurricane Katrina, and the Great East Japan Earthquake, is that the private sector plays an importantrole in reducing economic damage and regional impacts when they are well prepared for disasters. As
its supply chains are closely intertwined, a single disaster could affect the economic activities of theentire region (ADRC, 2011). As the role of private sector has high importance, it need to encouragethem to ready in any case of devastating impacts from disaster and for this reason, it is important tohave a dedicated organization at national level for disaster management to mobilize thenon-government sector including private sector with the use of past learned lessons.
It is also important to seek example of some another countries like Finland. The same way as in Nepal,
the disaster management was the overall responsibility with the response agency. Laying the responsepart to the response agency, they gradually shift the wider responsibility of disaster management under
the its Prime Minister Office, presuming the better coordination at national level. The UNISDR Paper
states this development as 'The Rescue Act, covering prevention, preparedness and response, wasamended in 2011 and lays down, among other things, the tasks of rescue services and theadministration and the powers of rescue authorities from national to local levels.

The

implementation of this comprehensive set of policies and wide-ranging legislation is adapted to the
Finnish institutional setting; it combines the assignment of strategic tasks and responsibilities at thenational level to responsible line ministries under the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s Office,together with operational implementation from both national technical agencies and independent local
governments (UNISDR, 2014). There system seems more closer to Japanese System aiming tomanage disaster from powerful coordinating office from center. This could be better lesson learned for
Nepal as well.
7.7

Consideration of past recommendation for institutional set up

The UNISDR system has always focus on the focal government agency at national level, especiallyindependent and being powerful enough for coordination. In it's annual report 2013, it has mentionedthat only few progress has shown up for the establishment of the separate specific agency. it says 'theResearcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

70

most significant gains have been at country level. Those gains have revolved largely around risk
identification and early warning, the mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction, and strengthened
knowledge, innovation and education. In addition, countries’ disaster preparedness and responses also
improved, although governance and institutional arrangements showed little change. The visit ofSpecial Representative of the Secretary General to Palestine led to a high level political decision toestablish the Presidential committee that is now tasked with developing a disaster risk reduction
system including consideration of a legal and institutional framework. Governance and institutionalarrangements, however, were not being adapted quickly enough, and political commitment for disasterrisk reduction was not yet sufficiently reflected in fiscal and budgetary decision-making (UNISDR,2013). This has not mentioned the name of Nepal, but it can be easily visualized that there is a need tohave separate independent powerful coordinating body in Nepal.
Under the heading of the Mechanism for sustainable development for disaster, to improve the current
capacity of disaster management in Nepal, the NDR 2011 have also suggested to establish a strong
legal base for a comprehensive risk management system and to create a sustainable mechanism forinter-governmental and inter-institutional coordination by saying that currently Nepal lacks anecessary mechanism for sustainable disaster management (NDR, 2011). The establishment of
National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) is inherit recommendation from HFA and lot more
has expected from NDMOs. Some are : 'initiate dialogue between Ministry of Finance, Planning and
NDMO on earmarking a percentage of national and local development funds for DRR programs,
establish regular in-country dialogue between NDMOs, related Government Departments and Donor
agencies for the prioritization of DRR in country programming of donors, build capacity of
government, technical and research institutions and academics to undertake cost benefit analysis of
DRR, promote business case of benefits of investing in DRR with Ministries of Finance and Planning,
Private sector finance institutions and donor community, support provincial and district levelauthorities to develop specific preparedness and risk reduction plans and corresponding budgets anddevelop partnerships with National Industry Associations/Chambers of Commerce and Industry (ISDR,2010). The question again raised here, does these all expected can be fulfilled by our response focused
ministry. We are in a phase of struggling establishing the NDMO and still need to road ahead for us.
7.8

Institution for disaster management at national level

The proper linkage of each and every activity of all cycle of disaster management is crucial. A
ICIMOD research paper has emphasized some of the drawback in Nepalese disaster management
system, as the quotes are quoted here with slight wording modification as 'disaster preparedness has tobe approached holistically because it is difficult to isolate preparedness from other components ofdisaster management such as reduction, response, and recovery. There is insufficient coordination
prevails among key actor in the field of DM. lack of political will in an unstable political climate andlack of proper coordination among key stakeholders also play prominent roles in the policy failure in

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

71

Nepal. Policies have not addressed disaster management adequately, responsible departments areunder the bureaucracies of ministries, and committees are top heavy with policy-level rather thanpractical-level actors. Manpower is also extremely limited in the key department for dealing withwater-induced disasters (ICIMOD, 2007). This situation demands one specific government
coordinating agency at national level. Without the proper institutional framework of DRR at National
level 'the technical information about earthquake risk in the Kathmandu Valley is not applied to theinfrastructure of modern-day Kathmandu Valley, and is not presented in a form that is comprehensible
to the public and to government officials. The next large earthquake to strike will cause significant
loss of life, structural damage, and economic hardships, unless immediate action is taken by public andprivate stakeholders to reduce the vulnerability of exposed populations in the Kathmandu Valley(world bank, 2012) and it seems authority of Nepal is waiting for mega destructive disaster to haveproper institutional framework in future.
The role of focused institution for better management of disaster is important and this constraints
seems improving. 'Institutional weaknesses increase vulnerabilities to disasters. Policies andlegislations for managing natural disasters are often insufficiently enforced in South Asian Region.
Technical capacity for dealing with natural disasters is often constrained. Furthermore, administrative
bodies and public sector officials involved in disaster management often lack training in disaster risk
management and show weaknesses in longer term planning. Sudden larger scale catastrophes
sometimes overwhelm the governments’ response capacities, further exacerbating the impact ofdisasters. The region has begun efforts to institutionalize and mainstream disaster risk management
activities. To varying degrees, each country in the region has set out to establish institutional structures
and an ex-ante approach to mitigate the impact of hazard events at the national and sub-national levels(world bank, 2012). The situation for having specific institution for overall disaster management
seems improving globally.
In South Asian Region, only Nepal and Bhutan is managing disaster from its Home Ministry, rest
other countries either they have separate ministry for disaster management or they have created
NDMA. Bhutan is in the process of creating new separate institution, as 'Bhutan is working towards
adopting the National Disaster Risk Management Bill to further strengthen the disaster management
system in the country. The Bill is an effort to decentralize disaster management activities and toempower the nodal institutions at all levels, with the legal status to implement disaster reduction
strategies more effectively. Although it was endorsed by the Cabinet during its 114th session on
October 4th, 2011, the Bill is with the National Parliament and still pending. The National Disaster
Management Bill provides establishment of National Disaster Management Authority under theleadership of the Prime Minister at national level as the highest decision-making body on disastermanagement in the country (world bank, 2012). Once Bhutan establish the NDMA, Nepal would be
the last country in South Asian Region to have managing and coordinating the overall disaster

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

72

management activities through its response focused Home Ministry.
7.9

Some alternatives for proper institutional set up

The Ministry of Home Affairs is presuming two type of responsibility in Nepal, based on the current
institutional and legislative setup, namely playing active role for managing disaster response andassuming the role of overall management of disaster cycle. Other key ministries, department and otheroffices is playing their part of the role for line agency responsibility, creating linkages with disastermanagement aspect. Being observed with the role of the central coordinating agency and being
observed the decision of past CNDRC meetings with reviewing the various literatures, it can besummarized that, in time of response, their role is effective. So, in future, even though the new
institutional setup, the response role should be rested on the Ministry of Home Affairs. Based on thefinding, it has been taken into consideration as a best option for Nepal as the three types of
institutional arrangement for overall disaster management as alternatives and these have beenpresented here with proper prioritizing sequences. They would be :I.

Disaster Management Bureau (lead by one minister) at the Office of Prime Minister andCouncil of Minister

II.

Disaster Management Ministry

III.

National Disaster Management Authority (independent) under the Office of Prime
Minister and Council of Minister

7.10

Proper institutional setup for overall DM at national level

Disaster management council, headed by the Prime Minister would a apex coordinating body and the
proposed three options/institutions would play a secretariat role for the council. Based on the previous
research and the literature review of this research, these all option would have their own strength andweakness. The researcher has found that the 1st option, among three is best option for the overall
disaster management at national level. Based on the DM Study of the south Asian region and of Japan,
it would have been perfect to have a SWOT Analysis, 'an analysis as one of the most prevalent tools ofstrategic planning (Sage, 2013) but, in the absence of the proof or evident for the points raised in theanalysis, only some elaborative pints are given here below, as the researcher believe it would havebeen important.
For the option of the DM Bureau at Prime Minister's Office, headed by one designated Minister,would have benefit of Engagement of Prime Minister and his good Offices in coordinating the DM
Activities, that would be not only easy for policy decision and quick decision but also easy for finding
appropriate budget on DRR, that will ultimately lead for effective Policy coordination for DM both atnational and international level. The benefit of this arrangement has been drawn here from theexperience from Japanese DM System, as it can be seen in the analysis part of this research. This
arrangements could also draw attention of high level politicians with proper priority on DRR, that can

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

73assemble all government and non-government stakeholders in the form of effective DRR Platform,
ultimately having timely policy initiations in the form of mainstreaming DRR into development
planning process and having proper coordinate to all phase, the pre, during and post phase of DM. The
arrangement of DM Bureau at Prime Minister's Office, headed by one designated Minister also havesome of weakness and limitations. In some case, if there is no disaster in the country, the high level
political attention might not permanently lies with the direct interest from PM, not getting attention of
the PM's good offices in normal time, as the office has to engage with other so many governanceissues in the same time. In the same time, if the DM issues go to the PM Offices, there must be
involvement of too many actors in DM decision, this some time leads confusion and less coherent
decision process, might be creating some back drops for DM at national level. One big question
always remains unanswered that if the top organization in the country fails or got unsuccessful
initiations, then what could be the next option for the proper organizational setup, it is very difficult tofind the answer in this case.
In case of DM Ministry in the country, it would have extreme benefit of having separate designatedministry for the overall management of all activity of all cycle of disasters by having separate andspecific program and program-base budget, as it have been seen in case of Bangladesh, Sri lanka andMaldives in the analysis part of this research. This will ministry will work continuously whether there
is disaster incident or not or in this case, disaster management will be treated as a regular job of thegovernment by focusing DM as a holistic approach and by engaging the wider stakeholder of DRM.
This will also lead to the performance base incentive systems both for government employee thenon-government sectors, as awarding or punishing them on the basis of achievement they have madein the area of DRM. This provision also poses some of the weakness. In some case, especially in timeof response, the role of this ministry will contradict with the Home Ministry and in some other case,the role of this ministry may confuse with the other line Ministries, that might create some confusionand delay in work. Since it will act as a separate Ministry, in some case, law priority Minster would
join the DM Ministry, that might lead the law political priorities with less motivated politicians andbureaucrats.
In case of powerful and independent Disaster Management Authority, independently works under thePrime Minister Office, has some praiseworthy benefit to the areas of disaster management, as it havebeen seen in case of India and Pakistan in the analysis part of the research. This arrangement would
lead towards a designated high level office with designated leader and employee at national level, evenindependent with proper authoritative power from Act. It can independently works for overall activityof disaster management with proper policy feedback to the Prime Minister headed DM Council andalso monitor independently monitor the DM implementation status in the country.

This institutions

can be involved itself with proper and sufficient study and research on different issues of DM,
followed by proper plan and program with wider engagement of DRR stakeholders. This institution

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

74

can revel the effective coordination with international DRR actors to fulfill of the commitments fromnational level. But the arrangement also posses serious threats, as it can be seen in some of thecountries case that the authority always poses the role and power conflict with other ministries anddepartments, especially in the area of DRR and Recovery. For the response, the quote and unquote one
rescue from National Disaster Response Force has Cleary mentioned in one incident command systemtraining that the authority is a paper-base organization, dealing disaster from papers. This might havesome sensitivity issue and might have some confusion with the role conflict with responseorganization. Since the authority is independent and outsiders employee then core government
employee, it might, in some cases, lead to the insufficiency of budget although the program and policy
is nicely prepared. In so many case, due to cohesive power of implementation, as other authority casehas to be analyzed, the Authority lacks the implementation capability of approved plan and programs.
Authority itself

means self-sustained agency. In the DM case, it can not generate revenue by itself

rather it has to rely on government budget for DRR. In some case, there is always question of priority
arise before releasing budget to this type of autonomous agency, that leads the question ofself-sustained Authority.
This short analysis, based on the analysis in this research in the respective chapters of south Asian
countries experience along with Japanese system experience has been drawn here for necessary
finding. I t has been concluded here that among these three type of arrangement the first option i.e.
Disaster Management Bureau (lead by a designated Minister) at the Office of Prime Minister Office isproper and suitable institutional arrangement at national level for the management and coordination of
overall activities of all cycle of disaster management. Since the disaster management is multi-tasked
agenda, all stakeholders from government and non-government has to assumer their role andresponsibility with proper coordination from the apex coordinating body. It has been also seen that thecoordinator should have higher authoritative hierarchy in the bureaucratic system of government toease and to expedite the coordination capacity. Based in this presumption and analysis, in that case,the concluded thought would have found the best option for overall coordination for disastermanagement at national level, that works directly under the disaster management council headed byPrime Minister with three consecutive sub-committee for prevention, response and recovery lead by
the sector Ministers. This conclusion and findings do value the current national situation and condition,
taking into account the ground necessity and the system varies from national culture to culture,
accepting the sole responsibility of the country to adopt the proper system, as the country thinknecessary.

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

75Abbreviation
ADBI

Asian Development Bank Institute

ADRC

Asian Disaster Reduction Center

ADRCVR

Asian Disaster Reduction Center Visiting Researcher

ADPC

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

ANDMA

Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority

BCP

Business Continuity Plan

BOJ

Bank of Japan

BOJ-NETBank of Japan Network

BOKOMI

Disaster-Safe Welfare Community (in Japan)

BSL

Building Standard Law, 1950 in Japan

CAP

Contingency Action Plan

CBOs

Community-base Organizations

CCMNC

Cabinet Committee on Management of Natural Calamities in India

CDMC

Central Disaster Management Council in Japan

CDO

Chief District Officer in Nepal

CNDRC

Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee in Nepal

CODM

Cabinet Office Disaster Management (in Japan)

CPP

Cyclone Preparedness Program in Bangladesh

CPPIB

Cyclone Preparedness Program Implementation Board in Bangladesh

CRF

Calamity Relief Fund in India

CSDDWS

Committee for Speedy Dissemination of Disaster Related Warning/ Signals in
Bangladesh

CSOs

Civil Society Organizations

CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility

DCBA

Disaster Counter Measure Basic Act, 1961 in Japan

DDC

District Development Committee in Nepal

DDM

Department of Disaster Management at Bangladesh

DDMC

Dzongkhag DM Committee at Bhutan

DDRC

District Disaster Relief Committee in Nepal

DK House

International Residence House at Kobe

DisInventar

Disaster Inventory Database

DPRI

Disaster Prevention Research Institute

DPRP

Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan Guideline, 2011 in Nepal

DPT

Disaster Prevention TypeDM

Disaster Management

DMS

Disaster Management System

DRM

Disaster Risk Management

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

76

DRR

Disaster Risk Reduction

EFDRR

European Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction

EIA

Environment Impact Assessment

EMDAT

International Disaster Database

EMERCON

Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense, Emergencies and Disaster Relief

EOCs

Emergency Management Centers (at District or at Municipal level in Nepal)

EPAC

Earthquake Preparedness and Awareness Committee in Bangladesh

ERT

Emergency Response Type of Disaster

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency at USA

FFP

Five Flagship Program 2009-2014 in Nepal

FPOCG

Focal Point Operation Coordination Group of Disaster Management in Bangladesh

GIS

Geographic Information System

GAR

Global Assessment ReportGDP

Gross Domestic Product

GIZ

German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation

GLOF

Glacial Lake Outburst Floods

GoI

Government of India

GoN

Government of Nepal

GPS

Global Positioning Systems

GSDMA

Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority at India

HFA

Hyogo Framework of Action 2005-2015

HFA2

Framework of Action after HFA

HIRU

Housing and Infrastructure Redevelopment Unit at MaldivesHR

Human Resource

HLC

High-level Committee (in India, in the case of calamities of severe nature)

IDNDRInternational Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction

ICHARM

International Center for Water Hazard and Risk Management

ICIMODInternational Center for Integrated Mountain Development

IDR

India Disaster Report

IMDMCCInter-Ministerial Disaster Management Coordination Committee at Bangladesh

IMG

Inter-Ministerial Group (in India, in the case of calamities of severe nature)

INGOs

International Non-Government Organizations

IRP

International Recovery Platform

ISDR

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

JGB

Japan Government Bond Service

JMA

Japan Meteorological Agency

LDRC

Local Disaster Relief Committee in Nepal

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

77

LDRMP

Local Disaster Risk Management Guideline, 2012 in Nepal

LSGA

Local Self Governance Act, 1999 in Nepal

MBT

Main Boundary Trust

Mgmt

Management

MoDM

Ministry of Disaster Management in Sri Lanka

MoDMR

Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief in Bangladesh

MoDNSS

Ministry of Defense and National Security Services in Maldives

MOFALD

Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development in Nepal

MOHA

Ministry of Home Affairs, Nepal

MoHCA

Ministry of Home and Culture Affairs, Bhutan

MOLITT

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in Japan

MPM

Master of Public Management

NCCF

National Calamity Contingency Fund in India

NCDM Bhu

National Committee for Disaster Management in Bhutan

NCDM SLNational Council for Disaster Management in Sri Lanka

NCMC

National Crisis Management Committee in India

NCRA

Natural Calamity (Relief) Act, 1982 (at Nepal)

NDMP

National Disaster Management Plan of Sri Lanka

NDMA

National Disaster Management Agency/Authority

NDMAC

National Disaster Management Advisory Committee at Bangladesh

NDMC

National Disaster Management Council

NDMC SLNational Disaster Management Center in Sri Lanka

NDMC Pak

National Disaster Management Commission in Pakistan

NDMC Mal

National Disaster Management Center in Maldives

NDMC Nep

National Disaster Management Council in Nepal (proposed)

NDMF

National Disaster Mitigation Fund at India

NDMO

National Disaster Management Office

NDR

National Disaster Report

NDRCU

National Disaster Relief Coordination Unit at Maldives

NDRF India

National Disaster Response Force in India

NDRF

National Disaster Response Framework in Nepal

NDRSC

National Disaster Relief Services Center in Sri Lanka

NECNational Executive Committee in India

NEOC

National Emergency Operation Center

NERU

National Economic Recovery Unit at Maldives

NGOs

Non-Government Organizations

NGOCC

NGO Coordination Committee on Disaster Management in Bangladesh

NHK

Public broadcasting corporation in Japan

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

78

NIDM

National Institute of Disaster Management in India

NPC

National Planning Commission in Nepal

NPDRR BDSNational Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Bangladesh

NPDRR NPL

National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal

NRCS

Nepal Red Cross Society

NRRC

National Risk Reduction Consortium in Nepal

NSS

National Security Service at Maldives

NSDRM

National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management, 2009OSDMA

The Orissa State Disaster Mitigation Authority at India

NTT

Telecommunication company in Japan

PDMC

Provincial Disaster Management Commissions at Pakistan

PMNDRFPM National Disaster Relief Fund in India

PPP

Public Private Partnership

QGIS

Quantum Geographic Information System

RDRC

Regional Disaster Relief Committee in Nepal

SAHANASAHANA Disaster Management Data-base System

SAARC

South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

SDMA

State Disaster Management Authority in India

SDMC

SAARC Disaster Management Center

SDRF

State Disaster Response Force in India

SOP

Standard Operating Procedures

SWOT

Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat Analysis

TEPCO

Tokyo Electric Power Company Service

TEWS

Tsunami Early Warning System in India

TIA

Tribhuvan International Airport at Nepal

TLU

Transport and Logistics Unit at MaldivesUN

The United Nations

UNDRO

The United Nations Disaster Response Office

UNISDRThe United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

UNDP

The United Nations Development Program

UNOCHAThe United Nations Office for Coordinating the Humanitarian Affairs

VDC

Village Development Committee in Nepal

VR

Visiting Researcher at ADRC

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

79

References
ADPC, 2000. Project Completion Report of the Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management
Project Under the Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program, Asian Disaster Preparedness
Center Publication from http://www.preventionweb.net/files/19643_np11.pdf
ADPC, 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Disaster Management in Myanmar, Asian Disaster
Preparedness

CenterPublication,

Bangkokfrom

http://www.preventionweb.

net/files/14637_14637Binding1.pdf
ADRC, 2011. BCP Status of the Private Sector in the APEC Region, APEC Emergency Preparedness
Working

Group,

Asian

Disaster

Reduction

Center,

Kobe

from

http://www.adrc.asia/publications/bcp/2011_epwg_BCP_ADRC.pdf
ADRC & IRP, 2011. Great East Japan Earthquake (GLIDE:EQ-2011-000028-JPN) Preliminary
Observations, Asian Disaster Reduction Center & International Recovery Platform, Kobe
ADRC, 2012. Recovery Vision from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami : Lessons for thedisaster management in countries around the world, Asian Disaster Reduction Center
Publication
Bhattarai, D. & Poudyal Chhetri, M. B. (2001). Mitigation and Management of Floods in Nepal,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Nepal
Bilham R., 1995. Location and magnitude of the 1833 Nepal earthquake and its relation to the rupturezones of http://www.cao.go.jp/en/disaster.html
BOJ, 2011. Report and Research Paper on Responses to the Great East Japan Earthquake by Payment
and Settlement Systems and Financial Institutions in Japan, Bank of Japan fromhttps://www.boj.or.jp/en /research/brp/ron_2011/data/ron111027a.pdf
CEDMHA, 2012. Country Disaster Response Handbook, October 2012; Centre for Excellence inDisaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance Publication
Chitrakar G.R & M.R. Pandey, 1986. Historical Earthquake of Nepal : Bulletin of Geological Societyof Nepal Vol 4 pp 7-8, contiguous great Himalayan earthquakes. Current Science, 69, 2,
101-128 from http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/volumes.php
Cabinet Office, 2011. Disaster Management in Japan, Cabinet Office Disaster Management
Publications, 2011, from http://www.cao.go.jp/index-e.html
Dhital, Narayen 2009. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in
Nepal: Exploring the Possibilities, Laval University, Canada, Forest and livelihood, Vol 8(1),2009 Februrary
DPNet, 2008. Situation Report of the Koshi Flood (Updated), from http://un.org.np
DWIDP, 2011. Disaster Review 2010, DWIDP, Ministry of Irrigation, Government of Nepal, July
2011, series XVIIIEFDRR, 2014. Report on Governance and Accountability on Hyogo Framework for Action: The
European Perspective, Working Group on Governance and Accountability for Disaster Risk
Reduction,

EuropeanForum

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

for

Disaster

Risk

Reduction

from

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

80

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/39593_efdrrreportgaweb.pdf
FAO, 2008. Disaster Risk Management Systems Analysis : A guide book, Prepared by Stephan Baas,et.al.,

Food

andAgriculture

Organization

of

the

UnitedNations

Rome

from

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/3769_ai504e00.pdf
Farlex(ed.),

2014.

The

Free

Dictionary,Free

Dictionary

Publication

from

net

at

http://www.thefreedictionary.com /institution
GIZ, 2013. The Disaster Risk Management Handbook : A learning experience of DRM Model
Mansehra,GermanCooperation

Publication

atPakistanfrom

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/32968_32968buildingresiliencebylearningth.pdf
GON, 1982. Natural Calamity (Relief) Act, 2039, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu fromwww:://www.MOHA.gov.np
GON, 1999. Local Self Governance Act, 2055, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu fromwww:://www.mofald.gov.np
Harsh K Gupta (ed.) 2003. Disaster Management in India, Universities Press Delhi ISBN 81 7371
4568

from

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=m7UD_y4vP-0C&printsec=

frontcover#v=

onepage&q&f=false
HFA, 2005. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 - 2015, HFA Update, UNISDR
Hyogo Phoenix, 2010. A Journal of Creative Reconstruction : 15th Anniversary of the Great
Hansin-Awaji Earthquake, Hyogo Safety Day Promotion Committee Publication, Kobe
ICIMOD, 2007. Disaster Preparedness for Natural Hazards: Current Status in Nepal, Consultation
Report by Bhubanesh Kumar Pradhan, International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development(ICIMOD)

Kathmandu,

Nepal

from

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/2738_icimodd6684002fabbc9ed275e7a53ca38ec55.pdf
InterWorks, 1998. Model for a National Disaster Management Structure, Preparedness Plan, andSupporting Legislation, DISASTER MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM Document
Series from http://www.preventionweb.net/files/5142_US01MH840-Ft.pdf
ISDR, 2010. Advancing Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) in Asia and thePacific 2009-2015, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction and Asian Disaster
Preparedness Center Publication from http://www.preventionweb.net/files/18038_hirap.pdf
ISDR, 2010a. Disaster through A Different Lens : Behind Every Effect, There is A Cause, The
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Publication
James D. Thompson, 2007. Organizations in Action : Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory,
McGraw-Hill, Publication New York
Jayawardane, AKW, 2007. Disaster Mitigation Initiatives in Sri Lanka, Dean, Faculty of EngineeringandProfessor

of

Civil

Engineering,

UniversityofMoratuwa,

Sri

Lanka

from

http://management.kochi-tech.ac.jp/PDF/IWPM/IWPM_Jayawardane.pdf
Kazusa, S., 2010. Disaster Management of Japan, A presentation from Kazusa, Shuhei, Director for
DisasterManagement,

CabinetResearcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

office,GovernmentofJapan,

from

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

81

http://management.kochi-tech.ac.jp/PDF/IWPM/IWPM_Kazusa.pdf
Makoto Ideda, 2012. KNOWLEDGE NOTE 2-2 CLUSTER 2: Nonstructural Measures Disaster
Management Plans, Prepared by Makoto Ikeda, Asian Disaster Reduction Center, the WorldBank Publication from http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/Data/wbi/wbicms/files/drupal-acquia/
wbi/drm_kn2-2.pdf
John Child, 1984. Organization : A guide to problems and practice, Paul Chapman Publishing ltd
Publication,

Londonhttp://books.google.co.jp/books?id=mpOtotiPfNIC&printsec=

frontcover&dq=organization&hl=ne&sa=X&ei=nqAjVPT0Iobf8AWXxYLYAg&ved=0CFsQ6
AEwCA#v=onepage&q=organization&f=false
Message, 2014. Message from the Prime Minister of Pakistan On the occasion of National Disaster
Awareness Day (08 October 2014) in Islamabad from http://www.ndma.gov.pk/new/Documents/disaster-day-8-10-14.pdf
MOHA, 1996. National Action Plan on Disaster Management in Nepal, Government of Nepal,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Kathmandu, Nepal
MOHA, 1998. Problems of Disaster Management in Nepal and Measures to Solve them, A Report
prepared by a Task Force, Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kathmandu, Nepal
MOHA, 2009. Nepal Disaster Report, 2009, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kathmandu
MOHA, 2010. Disaster Scenario in Nepal (Unpublished data), Disaster Management section, Ministryof Home Affairs, Kathmandu
MOHA, 1994. Disaster Management in Nepal: A Profile, Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Kathmandu, Nepal
MOHA, 2010a. Draft of Disaster Management Bill 2010, Ministry of Home Affairs Nepal,
Kathmandu
MOHA, 2011. Nepal Disaster Report 2011, Ministry of Home Affairs Nepal, Kathmandu fromhttp:://www.MOHA.gov.np
MOLitt, 2012. White paper on land, infrastructure, transport and tourism in Japan, Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism publication and many other white papers related todisaster managements
MOLITT, 2010. Water and Disaster Management Bureau Japan, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism Japan publications from http://www.mlit.go.jp/en/index.html
Mikio Ishiwatari, 2013. Disaster Risk Management at the National Level, ADBI Working Paper Series,
Asian Development Bank Institution Publication, Japan
Nazarov, VR-ADRC, 2011. Emergency Response Management in Japan, research report submitted to
ADRC by VR011 Emin NAZAROV, Crisis Management Center, Ministry of Emergency
Situations of the Republic of Azerbaijan
NDMA, 2010. National Disaster Management Guideline : Management of Tsunami, a publication of
National Disaster Management Authority, New Delhi
NDMA, 2013. National Disaster Risk Reduction Policy of Pakistan, Ministry of Climate Change,

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

82

National Disaser Management Authority Publication
NIDM 2012, Indian Disaster Report, 2012, compiled by K.J. Anandha Kumar & Ajinder Walia,
National Institution of Disaster Management, New Delhi, India
NPC, 2059: Tenth Plan, 2059-2064, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu
NPC, 2064: Three Year Interim Plan, 2064-2067, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu
NRCS, 2011. International Disaster Response Law (IDRL) in Nepal; A study on strengthening legal
preparedness for disaster response, Nepal Red Cross Society and the International Federation of
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva,
NSDRM, 2009. National Strategy on Disaster Risk Management, 2009, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Kathmandu Nepal
Rajib Shaw (ed.), 2012. Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction, Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, UK from http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=lr_2aTnmUnAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true
SAARC, 2013. SAARC Regional progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for
Action(2011-2013),

SARRC

Reporting

Seriesfromwebsite:http://www.preventionweb.net/files/32602_RegionalHFAprogress-SAARC(2011-2013).pdf
Sage, 2013. Encyclopedia of Management Theory : SWOT Analysis Framework, Contributors: Eric
H. Kessler, pagination print book from http://www.uk.sagepub.com/gray3e/study/chapter3/
Encyclopaedia%20entries/SWOT_Analysis_Framework.pdf
SDMC, 2010. Journal of South Asian Disaster Studies, Journal of the SAARC Disaster Management
Centre,Volume3,

Number2,

2010

December,

New

Delhi

from

http://saarc-sdmc.nic.in/pdf/publications/journal/saarc%20journal%20dec%202010.pdf
SDMC, 2011. South Asia Disaster Report, SAARC Disaster Management Center Delhi Publicationfrom http://saarc-sdmc.nic.in/pdf/Publications/SADR2011.pdf
SDMC, 2008. A Background Paper at SAARC Workshop on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reductionin Development 14-15 November 2008, Colombo, Sri Lanka, prepared by SAARC Disaster
Management Center from http://saarc-sdmc.nic.in/pdf/publications/drr/chapter-1.pdf
SDMC, 2011a. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 : Building the Resilience of Nations andCommunities to Disasters, SAARC Disaster Management Paper, New Delhi
Thomas D. Schneild & Larry Collins, 2000, Disaster Management and Preparedness, CRC Press LLC
Publication, USA
Tom Mitchell, Debarati Guha and et.al., 2014. Setting, measuring and monitoring targets for reducing
disaster risk Recommendations for post-2015 international policy frameworks, Overseas
Development Institute Publication, UK
Tsukuba, 2012. Promotion of Internationalization in Everyday Life Policy Paper on International
Cooperation, Tsukuba Univesity fromUN, 2013. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013, The Pocket GAR from
Shared Risk to Shared Value : The Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction

Researcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A

83

UNDP/BCPR, 2004. Disaster Risk Assessments in Nepal- A Comprehensive Country Situation
Analysis, submitted to Global Risk Identification Program
UNDP, 2009. Cost Benefit Study of Disaster Risk Mitigation Measures in Three Islands in theMaldives, Co -Authored by Paul Venton and Ahmed Shaig, United Nations Development
Program Maldives, MaleUNISDR, 2000.

Capacity Building for Disaster Reduction in Developing Countries, Focus Paper

No. 3, Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction, Geneva
UNISDR, 2012. Reducing Vulnerability and Exposure to Disaster, Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2012,UNISDR and UNESCAP Publication
UNISDR, 2013. ANNUAL REPORT 2013 : Final Report on 2012-2013, Biennium Work Program,
UNISDR Publication
UNISDR, 2014.

Finland Peer Review − Building resilience to disasters: Implementation of the

Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015), UNISDR, EC, OECD.
Various publication/brochure of Japan Meteorological Agency from http://www.jma.go.jp/
jma/en/Publications/publications.html
VR ADRC, Country Reports from Nepal and Research Reports from ADRC Liberary of different
years, especially from VR Shambhu Prasad Marashini and VR Rameshor Dhangal
World Bank, 2012 .Disaster Risk Management in South Asia : The Regional Overview, the WorldBank & GFDRR Publication, Washington
World Bank, 2012a. Sendai Report: Managing Disaster for a Resilient Future. Washington, DC, WorldBankWorld Bank, 2012b. The Great East Japan Earthquake, Learning from Mega disasters, IBRD/WB
from

http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/Data/wbi/wbicms/files/drupal-acquia/wbi/drm_exsum_engli

sh.pdfYu Jin & Marcia McNutt, 1996. Mapping the descent of Indian and Eurasian Plates beneath the
Tibetan Plateau from gravity anomalies, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and planetary
Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol.

101.

No.

B5

from

http://www.ija.csic.es/gt/ivone/ftp/Tibet/References/Jin_etal._

JGR1996_gravity.pdf
Zoë Scott, Roger Few, et.al. 2014, Strategic Research into National and Local Capacity Building forDisaster Risk Management, Literature Review: Version 1, Oxford Policy Management
Publicationfrom

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/39416_39416opmifrcliteraturereviewv

11.pdfResearcher : Pradip Kumar Koirala, from MoHA, Nepal

ADRC Visiting Researcher Program 2014 A